Method of Desulfurization Process Selection Based on Improved Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation: A Case Study of Papermaking Desulfurization in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
in my opinion the paper deals with an interesting topic. You have decribed the model applied to improve the evaluation of the desulfurization process properly. In the attached file you find my comments. Please try to simplify some sentences so that the readers will have an easy reading.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
I am appreciated to your careful and patient review for our manuscript.We will revised this paper in accordance with your suggestion as soon as. We will try our best to simplify sentences for readers easily.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper uses a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to selection of desulfurization process. Although authors conducted lots of works, the study is not clearly presented and little originality can be found.
The technical content is poor. In the introduction, authors present a lot of information but in a chaotic expression.
The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, AHP method and Shannon entropy have been extensively investigated over the past years. More statements on the originality, characteristic or parametric variations for present study should be given to reflect the significance of proposed work.
The methodology subjects need to be clearly presented (there are no references). The authors need to do a better literature review regarding the used methodology. It is recommended to refer to the precursors of the approaches and theories. For example, page 7, Deng Xue et al. (2012) are not precursors of AHP method.
The Tables 2-3 are difficult to read due to the lack of borders for rows. The description of Fig. 2 in text does not correspond to the figure. The formulas should be revised (for example 1,2×××m ->1,2,…,m …), lack of some formulas on page 8.
The authors should revise all document. No spaces in many places, punctuation errors, some acronyms (BPR, ANP, EWM, IFCE,…) are not defined in the first use, also some minor mistakes should be corrected (YOU ->You, …).
Author Response
First of all, we are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable opinions and suggestions. The authors have carefully revised the opinions of each reviewer. Now I will give you the revised instructions and thank you and the reviewers for their hard work. The red font text in the text is the modified content, and the inappropriate content is deleted in conjunction with the reviewer's comments. The final modification is shown in the attachment and has been uploaded on the system platform.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of the article „Similarity measures of q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets based on cosine function and their applications“ by Ping Wang, Jie Wang, Guiwu Wei and Cun Wei
The paper has relevant topic contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication. The research contents are fit within scope of this journal. The empirical part remains the strength of the paper.
Shortcomings of the article:
Figure 4 it is not clear what units on the Y axis. Not very clear the purpose of the research.
It needs add information about the research application possibilities in practice and results reliability.
It needs add discussions section. In this section need to discuss about research results.
In the conclusions must clearly show what problems the researchers have solved and which results are better than the results of other researches.
The article should be arranged according to the requirements of the journal.
Author Response
First of all, we are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable opinions and suggestions. The authors have carefully revised the opinions of each reviewer. Now I will give you the revised instructions and thank you and the reviewers for their hard work. The red font text in the text is the modified content, and the inappropriate content is deleted in conjunction with the reviewer's comments. The final modification is shown in the attachment and has been uploaded on the system platform.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The correctness of the mathematical notation is still not maintained. All entries of type i=1···n should be written in the form: i=1, …, n (1 comma, ellipsis, comma n).
The Authors still do not show the precursors of the methods cited, e.g. formula (4) is Shannon's entropy [1].
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, 379-423, 623-656.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your careful and hard work. I am appreciated to your suggestion. According to your valuable revision suggestion to our manuscript, the authors have revised this manuscript. The detailed response is seen in attachment and the revised version is uploaded into system.
Best regards
Zhiguo WANG
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
