Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very well structured research with significant content and originality of results.

A dynamic modelling process could be added 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, we have revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Motivation does not explain why the approach was taken.

2. If the method of Z-HFN SNA is not original, please explain or indicate the source of reference.

3. The definitions of "Linguistic Terms for Ratings of Alternatives" and "Linguistic Terms for Reliability of Each Criterion" are defined by the author themselves or cited other studies, please explain.

4. Please reformat Form 5-9.

5. Compared with other methods, whether the method is better than other methods.

6. Please strengthen the content of the conclusion.

Author Response

No.	Comments	Response
1	Motivation does not explain why the approach was taken.	The reason on the approach taken has been explained in the introduction.
2	If the method of Z-HFN SNA is not original, please explain or indicate the source of reference.	The method is original from author themselves.
3	The definitions of "Linguistic Terms for Ratings of Alternatives" and "Linguistic Terms for Reliability of Each Criterion" are defined by the author themselves or cited other studies, please explain.	The definitions are cited from other studies that carry the same approach as this paper.
4	Please reformat Form 5-9.	Page 5 to 9 has been formatted
5	Please strengthen the content of the conclusion.	The conclusion has been adjusted.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes a new method for large scale decision making for asset allocation. However, the paper contains unclear aspects, that need to be clarified.

Here are some general and punctual suggestion for improving the paper and make it clearer for the reader:

- is the case study a simulation or not? Authors need to make this clear and include information about what the case study represents and details about what data has been included

- all formula need to have a legend to explain the symbols

- make clear where the TOPSIS method has been used

- more information and discussion needs to be included about the applicability of the new method and about the advantages and disadvantages of the new method

- acronyms need to explained the first time they appear in text (including in abstract) and the acronym to be included with the concept the first time the concepts appears in the text (Ex: SNA, DM, etc)

- The  English language needs to be improved both in terms of expression and editing (Ex: p. 1 raws 23 -24; p. 2 raws 50-51; 58; 74, etc)

- the paper needs to include comments on its theoretical and practical contributions, as well as on its limitations.

English needs improvement.

Author Response

No.	Comments	Response
1	Is the case study a simulation or not? Authors need to make this clear and include information about what the case study represents and details about what data has been included.	In section 3 explained the case study carried in which a stock selection by 33 decision makers involved in row 204 -212
2	all formula need to have a legend to explain the symbols	The formula has been added the definition that explains the symbols
3	make clear where the TOPSIS method has been used	TOPSIS is used to calculate the closeness coefficient in page 2
4	more information and discussion needs to be included about the applicability of the new method and about the advantages and disadvantages of the new method.	The information has been included in the conclusion.
5	acronyms need to explained the first time they appear in text (including in abstract) and the acronym to be included with the concept the first time the concepts appears in the text (Ex: SNA, DM, etc)	Acronyms has been explained in the article including in the abstract.
6	The English language needs to be improved both in terms of expression and editing (Ex: p. 1 raws 23 -24; p. 2 raws 50-51; 58; 74, etc)	Adjustments have been made on the page mentioned.
7	the paper needs to include comments on its theoretical and practical contributions, as well as on its limitations.	The comments of theoretical and practical contributions as well limitations has bee added in the conclusion.

Reviewer 4 Report

Why did authors use Z-hesitant fuzzy theory, could some other form of fuzzy theory be more appropriate?

 

The motivation explanation and the aim of the research are not well explained, please give the main contributions of the paper.

 

The literature review is too poor, more comprehensive literature should be given and contributions according to previous studies should be explained.

 

The conclusion is too short and the discussion section is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have incorporated most of the suggestions . Still, there is no discussion on the paper's theoretical contributions and no discussion on the limitations of the research.

OK

Author Response

No.	Comments	Response
1	Authors have incorporated most of the suggestions . Still, there is no discussion on the paper's theoretical contributions and no discussion on the limitations of the research.	The theoretical contributions and the limitation of the research has been added and highlighted in the analysis of the results.

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors are asked to provide more references on the topic. If this is not possible, please explain why.

Author Response

More references on the topic have been added and highlighted in text.