Review Reports - Multi-Target Rough Sets and Their Approximation Computation with Dynamic Target Sets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents a new method for computing and updating rough sets approximations in the multi-target context.

The article is interesting and scientifically sound. Please see below some comments.

1. About the target correlation property

The target sets considered in the paper are Global Correlated Target Sets (GCTS), introduced in Definition 2. I came to the conclusion that a GCTS is target set among which all targets are pairwise disjoint. If so, I think it should be clearly stated. Moreover, it is not explicitly stated why this property is important: if it was not the case, obviously the lower approximation would be empty. I think that a sentence in the introduction explaining why it is important for the rest of the paper that the target set should be a GCTS would help the reader.

Moreover, the is no discussion about the sensitivity of CCP threshold.

2. about English language

Present and past tense are alternatively used. Many definition or therorems start with "Supposed" (should be "Suppose")

3. some typos

line 164, 165, 168, 171: missing closing parenthesis after ,...,r})

inputs of Algorithm 2: upper aproximation R_G(X) repeated twice and lower approximation missong

line 8 of Algorithm 3: missing x_k

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me as a reviewer for this manuscript. The paper “Multi-target Rough Sets and Its Approximation Computation with Dynamic Target Set” presents interesting application of rough theory and rough sets in multi-label learning. The paper is written very well and has enough contribution to be published in Information. However, hoping to assist the authors in their research efforts, I provide several suggestions for improving the presented work:

1. Abstract - The abstract completely needs to be rewritten. The current abstract only describes the general purposes of the article. It should also include the article's main (1) impact and (2) significance on decision making systems. Note that a good abstract should contain aim, methods, findings and recommendations. In addition, it should cover five main elements, introduction, problem statement, methodology, contributions and results.

2. Introduction – Introduction section seems like written in rush. Introduction should provide us a short information about stated problem. The authors need to discuss their contributions compared to those in related papers. The research gap and motivation should be clarified in the introduction section. Authors should begin with the problem, the gap, then propose the research question and just after that say what they want to do to address that. Where is the gap? And you should clearly why it is a gap? Once again, if you say that it is a gap, then try to build a case for the gap.

3. You should extend the literature review with application of roughs sets. Remove papers published before 2018. I suggest authors to read below interesting papers: Sharma, H. K., Kumari, K., & Kar, S. (2021). Forecasting Sugarcane Yield of India based on rough set combination approach. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 163-177; Sahu , R., Dash , S. R., & Das, S. (2021). Career selection of students using hybridized distance measure based on picture fuzzy set and rough set theory. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 104-126. The authors must clearly discuss the significance of the research problem.

4. Section 5 is generally well prepared, but I would like to see more detail discussion on the results. A discussion section would allow you to come back to your research question and explain once again how their study inform literature in the proposed field in general. I suggest authors to provide some correlation discussion with results obtained based on other relevant algorithms in literature.

5. The conclusion section also seems to rush to the end. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to rewrite the entire conclusion section with focus on both impact and insights of the manuscript. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. No bullets should be used in your conclusion section. Provide some future directions.

If the paper is resubmitted as a significantly reworked piece of work, offering a proper view with clear Point-to-Point responses on what is the novelty and significantly improving the evaluation, then I can imagine a more positive second evaluation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The results are interesting. But there are a lot of errors in typos and grammars. For example,

(14) propose

(15) consider

(17) and proved.

(43; 44) proposed

(45) by re-define the (?)

(85; 86; 86; 87), Section

(93; 97; 102; 106; 134; 148; 174; 203; 245; 256; 271; 287; 298; 303), Suppose

(127), `,` should be replaced by ` .'

(132) Properties of GMTRS

(137; 138), if exists (?)

(140), remove `of Proposition 1'

(141~147; 153~155; 162~173; 179~182; 200~201; 229~230;

250~254; 292~296), not standable (use sentences)

(152), remove `of Proposition 2'

(157; 175), GMTRS,

(162), remove `of Proposition 3'

(178) remove `of Proposition 4'

(194), Here ~ , (remove `Where')

(197), add 1,'

(199), remove `of Theorem 1'

(*) Equations (2) ~(5) are not clear.

(228) remove `of Theorem 2'

(306), remove `of Theorem 6'

(231), Where is Definition 7?

(233), Thus

(*) Examples 6 and 7 are not clear.

(275), remove `of Theorem 4'

(291), remove `of Theorem 5'

(381), Algorithms ~ the sizes

(*) The referencers are mixed up.

The authors did not read the final version before submitting the paper and so the present form is not readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the reviewers' comments have been addressed carefully and sufficiently. The revisions are rational from my point of view. I think the current version of the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful and useful comments. Thank you again for your great affords on improving the quality of this paper. We have gone over the manuscript again with our best knowledge to revise it according to your comments, including:

1)All typos and grammar errors are revised carefully with our best knowledge;

2)All proof of theorems and lemmas are rewritten for readers can understand them;

3)We have double-checked the references.

All changes are marked with the revision trace function of Office Word software. Thank you for reviewing the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, see the marked pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All changes are marked with the revision trace function of Office Word software. Thank you for reviewing the paper.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.