Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is very interesting and methodology and results are well presented. However, there are some shortcomings in the Introduction and Conclusion.

The scientific contribution of the manuscript should be better explained and described in the Introduction: what is the aim of the research? Also, the authors should better explain what makes their research significant from given literature.

The Expert system and discussion section gives an explanation of the results, but what should be briefly explained is the aim of the research achieved and prove that by comparing the research with similar ones. The Conclusion section should then have final authors' conclusions regarding the obtained results, and how do these results contribute to the research field.

It is not mandatory, but future research could be briefly described.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After each terminology or symbol firstly appear in this paper, it necessary to explain, such as AHP… (especially in Equations) What is the “M” and “n” in Fig. 1 and equations?

“FC” changes to ”FE” in Table 4.

Please recheck the format of references to fit the request of the journal.

Please recheck the grammar for the manuscript.

“PR (Power requirement)” and “PW (Power requirement)”, as well as “SAFM (Side and Face Mill)” and “SAFM (Groove Mill)” appear in manuscript and Figure 2, respectively, which one is the right term?

Please recheck the abbreviation of proper noun.

Please recheck the weighting (not equal to 1.0) in Tables 4 and 6.

The Figure 7 appears earlier in this article than the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered and included all the reviewer's comments in the manuscript. The manuscript is significantly improved. For this reason, I recommend to accept it as it is for the next step.

Reviewer 2 Report

NO