An Application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP on the Discussion of Training Indicators for the Regional Competition, Taiwan National Skills Competition, in the Trade of Joinery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I confirm my previous decisionAuthor Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your support in our article.
Best Regards,
Dr. An Sheng Lee
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I appreciate to the authors who did a resubmission for the journal of Sustainability. However, I have mentioned same response two times during the revisions but can’t see what improvements had been changed based on referees’ comments and suggestions. This resubmitted manuscript is basically same as the previous versions. With the arguments raised, it still can be clearly understood that this study lacks the novelty, in addition there are many flaws in the narration, which I have given below as general comments.
- There are too many incorrect language details in your manuscript (lexical, grammatical and spelling errors, and phrases that do not belong to correct English). Please seek professional language assistance to ensure that language errors are eliminated, and the style of writing becomes more reader friendly.
- There ae a lot of similar articles published in MDPI and other reputed journals with similar research ideas. I do not find any distinct difference and novelty in this manuscript. Try to highlight your novelty.
- Abstract should be rewritten. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The current version is too generic.
- Introduction should be rewritten. Basically, Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research objectives? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Literature review should be included and needs to be describing on what basis literature review was done? Articles from which time frame, journals etc. were shortlisted for this study? Also, try to build the gap for your research.
- The manuscript has too much colloquialism and with the lack of a proper order in the content, it is very difficult to follow. Authors have to rethink a different flow. Many acronyms are introduced, but they are not properly explained.
- Many challenges are listed out. From which sources they were identified from. All these are not identified by yourself so please give the required citations.
- This research is based on response data. Hence it is important to discuss in detail about the data collection techniques used and types of respondents approached and their profiles etc.
- The authors have failed to explain the implications of the results. Improve the findings section with critically addressing the applicability of your findings.
- The discussion on results is poorly presented. The execution of the proposed methodology is appreciable while the discussion of the obtained results must be well improved highlighting the insights of the research findings and with support from earlier literature. I find many unsupported statements in this section.
- Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
- Please improve the quality of figures presented. Some texts inside of the figures are not clear enough for the general journal readers. Also, try to reduce the quantity of figures that are repeating with the text.
- Tables are not followed the journal guidelines and also not well formatted.
- Author contribution is not followed by the journal specification.
- References are outdated and are not followed by the journal guidelines. It is not acceptable after third time not following the referees’ suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your recommendations in our article.
We did our best to revise the article content in order to fit your recommendations.
Best Regards,
Dr. An Sheng Lee
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors introduced a new method, the Fuzzy Delphi technique, to validate questionnaire/survey instruments, the content validity.
It is interesting to read through the manuscript. I think the audience and field can benefit from this manuscript, the methodology of development and validation, as well as a validated instrument for future use in the vocational education field.
For future research, the authors might need to collect data from the students, and report the internal consistency, and/or conduct EFA and CFA analysis to validate the instrument. --- you might want to mention this in your future research directions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your recommendations in our article.
We did our best to revise the article content in order to fit your recommendations.
Best Regards,
Dr. An Sheng Lee
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Here are some recommendations to give your manuscript a little more consistency:
- In point 2.1.1. refer to study participants. A little more characterization of these would be recommended, as well as indicating how the sampling has been carried out. The same occurs in point 2.2.1. They could include a sub-section, in section materials and methods, indicating the characteristics of the participants, as well as the type of sampling followed.
Congratulations for your work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your recommendations in our article.
We did our best to revise the article content in order to fit your recommendations.
Best Regards,
Dr. An Sheng Lee
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I appreciate to the authors for making efforts to carry out the changes by the referees. I think the authors did a good job in clarifying the queries that this manuscript is substantially improved. Only thing I would like to recommend is to format the references followed by the journal guidelines.
