In my side of view this paper has some originality regarding to its application. Even, the author tries to mix different theories with each others, finally it give a bright-full results. However, I think there are lots of area that should be corrected and I think it was because of different amendments which were added to this paper after its first review.
1- The introduction is completely vast however it becomes to complicated while it just speak about history of the methods in details but it doesn't go through their application and definitions in general during introduction of the paper. I recommend author to re-structured the introduction and make it more readable for scholars.
2- It is a necessary to add a graphical chart at the end of introduction to avoid complication among history. the graphical chart should show the different areas that author mentioned about them and then it should illustrate the interactions and finally the contribution of this paper should be stared in the figure. It help to show the area of knowledge that author was explored in his study.
3- the contribution of this paper should be more highlighted at the end of introduction.
4- some small English errors should be corrected such as page one, line 48, in the middle, it should be "in recent years,..."
5- the structure of paper does not obey the standard form of normal academic papers, maybe some definitions should come under methodology, and results and discussions should be more highlighted rather than lots of complicated Remarks.
6- Since the strength of this paper is more in its application, it needs to be more strong on this issue. The examples should be more applied and even some example could be comparative example which shows any differences between this method and previous ones.
7- In page 3, Line 30, It is not suitable for academic paper to use "we"!
8- The procedure of this method should be illustrated by aid of graphical chart.
9- Conclusion should be more precise.
10- Using lots of references even at the end of the paper in remarks and results is not common and suitable at all. maybe they can be introduced as a significance of study in the introduction and at the end, the contributions should be mentioned alone.
11- Technically I like this mathematical solution in decision making. However, it will be so complicated for some scholars!
Reviewer #2:
The paper must be completely restructured.
Indeed, in its current form, the author presents:
- A set of definitions, remarks, examples, but without given textual explanations before giving the mathematical formulation.
- There are no apparent links between the different definitions, sections, etc. etc.
It should be important to:
- Explain with few words or in few lines, what is the contribution of the each definition.
- Propose the definitions with explanations, positioning, and links with what follow.
- Highlight the most important definitions to highlight the contribution of the author proportion.
On page 11, page where the author presents the proposal, we find a set of definitions, remarks and examples.
At page 11: It would be interesting that the author present the examples discussed by (Feng et al. 2010a) (Jiang et al. 2010a), and position its results regarding the obtained results by these authors. The goal is to have some elements of comparison.
Page 20: At the end of section 3 (proposed approach) there is no balance and the relationship between sections 3 and 4 (the author deal with 'Weighted interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making', again without link, explanations .).
We must wait the page 25 for having explanations: the author explains the benefits of its proposition, but as he does not position this proposition regarding other examples (examples discussed in (Feng et al. 2010a) (Jiang et al. 2010a)) ? The interest is not highlighted.
At the end of page 25, the explanations are presented without giving links with the different definitions, remarks, examples (presented at the beginning of the paper) ? the benefit of the proposed approach is less visible.
It is also the case for 'Weighted interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making' section. Moreover, the author does not position its proposition, without links .
A discussion on the types of problems that can be used with the proposed approach is important.
What about the following works: (Wang et al., 2009), (Zhang, 2011) regarding the proposed paper:
Zhoujing Wang, Kevin W. Li, Weize Wang, 2009, An approach to multiattribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessments and incomplete weights. Information Sciences 179, 3026-3040.
Zhiming Zhang, 2011, A rough set approach to intuitionistic fuzzy soft set based decision making. Applied Mathematical Modelling.
回复此楼