Comparing a Fuzzy Hybrid Approach with Invariant MGCFA to Study National Identity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting manuscript.
My Comments/ Suggestions:
(1) Clearly describe the contributions in the Abstract section.
(2) Clearly describe the motivation in the Introduction section of this paper.
(3) It would be great if you could improve the comparative analysis section.
(4) Revise the conclusions section and focus on the results you get, as well as the
method you propose.
(5) References are not formatted according to rules.
(6) The author should improve the English language of the manuscript.
(7) Expand literature review by citing related work:
Extension of TOPSIS model to the decision-making under complex spherical fuzzy information, Soft Computing, 25(2021), 10771-10795.
Risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis: Hybrid TOPSIS and ELECTRE I solutions with Pythagorean fuzzy information, Neural Computing and Applications, 33(2021), 5675-5703
Hybrid models for decision-making based on rough Pythagorean fuzzy bipolar soft information, Granular Computing, 5(2020), 1-15.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting study written in a very professional way. However, I advised the authors to revise their paper by considering the following points.
1. Revise the literature review with focus on more recent articles.
2. At the end of introduction section, please write the major contribution of the work pointwise
3. At the end of introduction section, please write the arrangement of the paper in a paragraph, that is, what you did in Section 2, 3 and so one.
4. The authors did not numbered the sections and subsections except the 1st one Introduction.
5. Introduction section: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? Better define contributions.
6. The originality and the importance of this work are not highlighted in the abstract, introduction and conclusions. The authors should work on this and prove that why this work is valuable. What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made?
7. I have tried and cannot find the research gap's identification in this paper. It is not provided in introduction Section. Please pay more energy for this.
8. In addition, some current related works are suggested to add, e.g., Image development in the framework of ξ –complex fuzzy morphisms (DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-201261); On Pythagorean fuzzy ideals of a classical ring (doi: 10.3934/math.20232130); A Comprehensive Study on Pythagorean Fuzzy Normal Subgroups and Pythagorean Fuzzy Isomorphisms (https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14102084); On Structural Properties of ξ –complex Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications (https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2038724)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a good connection between social science and fuzzy set theory and how it can help to design more robust analytical systems by considering national identity studies as the case study. Generally, the paper is well-presented and all the concepts have been illustrated clearly. In addition, the paper provides a good literature review along with strong analysis. Therefore, I recommend the paper for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The respected authors carried out a study and conclude that Fuzzy Hybrid Analysis can be considered a valid tool to measure the national identity by groups.
The paper is poorly written paper from the point of the structure of a research paper.
For example, the goal of the paper is discussed in page six which is very late. Introduction and literature survey are mixed. The Section 1 is Introduction then no Section number.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors revised the paper according to reviewer comment and now the paper is very good. I recommend for publishing
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
