Mathematical Models of Diagnostic Information Granules Generated by Scaling Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Warm congratulations to the authors for their work, but especially for the results. The proofs of the theorems, and some discussions, after stating the definitions, forced me to read those sentences two or three times to understand the essence. I confess that I have read your work with interest, and I have enjoyed it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report for the paper “Mathematical models of diagnostic information granules generated by scaling intuitionistic fuzzy sets”.

Significance :

. The scientific content of this paper is correct. 
. The results could be better presented. This would emphasize the quality of the presented work.

. The mathematical quality of this paper is correct. 
. The limits of the results obtained in this paper are not mentioned. This point should be investigated. 
Quality of presentation:

. The abstract is clear and presents correctly the subject addressed in this paper. 
. Introduction - What are your contributions?

. Better highlight novelty in the study.

. Better define motivations for the research.

. Literature review is missing. Based on LR you should define gap you are trying to cover.  IFS are powerful tools used in different fields in decision making. As a part of that I suggest author read and add below interesting papers:

Gergin, R. E., Peker, İskender, & Gök Kısa, A. C. (2021). Supplier selection by integrated IFDEMATEL-IFTOPSIS Method: A case study of automotive supply industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame211221075g; Limboo, B., & Dutta, P. (2021). A q-rung orthopair basic probability assignment and its application in medical diagnosis. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame191221060l.

 . Generally, validation and comparisons of the results is well prepared. But, more discussion in on the results of the case study are needed.

. Conclusion section. Remove equations from the conclusion section. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the methodology.  
Scientific soundness :
. The subject addressed in this paper is relevant.  
Interest to the readers :
. In my opinion, method of this paper seem to be interesting for the readership of the journal. 

Author Response

"The limits of the results obtained in this paper are not mentioned. This point should be investigated. 

Introduction - What are your contributions?

Better highlight novelty in the study.

Better define motivations for the research."

Change in lines 48, 78-79 and motivation is added in Line 84-94.

"Literature review is missing. Based on LR you should define gap you are trying to cover.  IFS are powerful tools used in different fields in decision making. As a part of that I suggest author read and add below interesting papers:

Gergin, R. E., Peker, İskender, & Gök Kısa, A. C. (2021). Supplier selection by integrated IFDEMATEL-IFTOPSIS Method: A case study of automotive supply industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame211221075g; Limboo, B., & Dutta, P. (2021). A q-rung orthopair basic probability assignment and its application in medical diagnosis. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame191221060l."

Reference to this literature is added. Lines 35-36 and 76-77.

"Generally, validation and comparisons of the results is well prepared. But, more discussion in on the results of the case study are needed.

Conclusion section. Remove equations from the conclusion section. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the methodology. "

Change in lines 654-666.