Decision Analysis Data Model for Digital Engineering Decision Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper is well-substantiated and addresses a cutting-edge topic of significant importance to the community. However, there are several aspects that require improvement:

1. Length of the Paper: The paper is excessively long. It is recommended to focus on the research topic and make reasonable content selections based on the main research thread. Currently, it reads more like a technical report than an academic paper.
2. Lack of Case Studies or Empirical Research: The paper lacks case studies or empirical research. The feasibility and effectiveness of the method are not sufficiently validated.
3. Non-Standard Figure 3: Figure 3 is not standardized. Some steps directly point to multiple steps, and the semantics of whether these steps are divergent or parallel are unclear. For example, Step 2 points to Steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 simultaneously. Is it possible that in some cases, Step 2 can directly jump to Step 7 without going through Steps 4, 5, and 6?

Author Response

Thank you. Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I must say that the manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. However, the authors do not provide the “problem” that they are addressing. The authors need to better explain the context of this research, including why the research problem is important. Additionally, there is thin information on discussion about future work or research opportunities related to the decision analysis data model for DE. Moreover, the manuscript appears to be overlength.

Author Response

Thank you. Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made sufficient improvement to gain acceptance of the paper.