Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1.   The symbols in Section 5. Evaluation model should be defined.

2.   The format in the reference could be completely unified to meet the Author Guidelines.

3.   Some errors were highlighted in fluorescent as attached manuscript. The authors could double-check the correctness before re-submission.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Cover Letter:

We would Like to thank you for your review and comments. We hope our response satisfy your notes and comments.

Reviewer 1 Notes:

1. The symbols in Section 5. Evaluation model should be defined.

We have added the definition of the symbols and have also added an appendix at the very end of the paper to define them so that they do not confuse the reader.

2. The format in the reference could be completely unified to meet the Author Guidelines.

We have reviewed the paper format and have used a professional proof-reading service to elevate the language.

3. Some errors were highlighted in fluorescent as attached manuscript. The authors could double-check the correctness before re-submission.

We reviewed the highlighted parts of the paper and made sure they are all corrected, and we have fixed all the cross referencing in the paper to make sure there is no errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.Abstract

1.1. Abstract must content concise review of the article and obligatory explained it's cocrete contribution to scientific knowladge.

2. Introduction

2.1 Introduction has unnecessary wider  content about existing methodologies in review of existing literature for solving considered problem in the paper  without deals purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested

3.The paper has unnecessary big section 2.Background and lacks with obligatory sections Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions which are given in Instruction for authors

4.The paper lacks a comparative evaluation of the proposed solution  with known others as well as it's eventual limitations

5.In section 5.Conclusion more detailed description of possible future work is lacking

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None.

Author Response

Thank you for your time 

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the authors apparently did not accept the suggestions given to them by me in the review of the previous version of the work, which were:

1.Abstract

1.1. Abstract must content concise review of the article and obligatory explained it's cocrete contribution to scientific knowladge.

2. Introduction

2.1 Introduction has unnecessary wider  content about existing methodologies in review of existing literature for solving considered problem in the paper  without deals purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested

3.The paper has unnecessary big section 2.Background and lacks with obligatory sections Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions which are given in Instruction for authors

5.In section 5.Conclusion more detailed description of possible future work is lacking.

Also, authors accepted only my fourth suggestion from the previous review:

4.The paper lacks a comparative evaluation of the proposed solution  with known others as well as it's eventual limitations,

by adding a subsection called Evaluation with two paragraphs, but they gave an incomplete and inadequate evaluation through a comparison with some other models and consequently drew a problematic conclusion:

„However, our model has been compared to a couple of models that evaluate hospitals to determine if it is logical and accurate. This comparison revealed that our model is somehow logical but could be adjusted to result in more accurate re-sults.“???

Author Response

please see the attached document 

Thank you for your time

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors accepted all my suggestions 

and corrected the paper based on them