Application of Fuzzy Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS for Selecting an International Crew Change Center in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction: The first part of the introduction, in which authors explain a problem is (in my view too long). It is crucial to explain a problem but also to be short.

The aim is presented. Authors could also add RG(s), which is not obligatory.

The only thing I miss in the Introduction section is a paragraph with the explanation of a literature review (few sentences and then more in a literature review section) on this topic to confirm a gap. If your paper is the only on this topic, please add this sentence in the Introduction section.

A literature review is a strength of this paper. Authors can add a sentence or two at the beginning to explain the content and a reason to include it into a literature review (just a suggestion).

2.1. Please add a methodology used by each found paper.

I suggest integrating a Table 1 and 2.

2.4., 2.5. and 2.5. are not the added value of this paper. They could remain as one sub-paragraph. Added value could be a sub-chapter which highlights which methods were used by authors in the past on same or similar topics (selection of a crew change port or selection of port). MCDM are very popular nowadays, but they are not the only proper methods. Besides they are used in different areas although they are not proper in some cases. That's why I believe 2.4. – 2.5. is not the added value.

Methodology

4.1. Suitability Analysis of Influencing Factors

Please explain how did you get a profesional opinion (how many professionals were included, Which type of professionals, country, the way you get anwers, how many repetitions did you have).

4.2. Importance Analysis of Key Influencing Factors

Please explain how many persons were included, which institution do they represent.

How was performed the evaluation, by uesing any sofware? By using AHP a consistency could be a problem.

Conclusion

Conclusion should include:

-        - a brief explanation of a paper's topic,

-        - results,

-       - contribution,

-        - how your paper upgrades past researces (please add),

-       -  limitation (please add). You results cannot be generalised, methodology can be. Methodology you use is very frequently used and at least AHP is useful criticised due to its simplicity. Is there any alternative? Is a best ranked port also the most efficient?

Many paragraphs are not necessary and a conclusion can be shorter. If you would like to keep some paragraphs then insert a Discussion section.

In summary, the paper covers a gap, is properly structured, methodology well explained. However, a methodology is rather simple and frequently used. Authors should add limitations and explain in detail DELPHI analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments are attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf