A Procedure for Choosing among Different Solutions to the Multi-Criteria Supplier Selection Problem along with Two Solution Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper formulates an integer nonlinear optimization model and Modified Factor Rating method. The topic is of interest, but there are some major concerns:
1. Research motivation is not clear. In introduction and literature review, there is no research gap identified. What's the key problem? Why is it necessary to modify exist FR method etc?
2. The improvement and advancement of proposed INOSIS and MFR are not clear.
3. There is no discussion of 12 factors selection. The rationale is in question, which makes the method difficult to be applied.
4. In the test problem, its not clear how to identify superior method.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your useful comments. We carefully incorporated/addressed your comments into the paper. Please find attached my response to your great comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The equation number format is inconsistent, please correct it.
2. Table format and font size are inconsistent, please correct them.
3. The presentation of the title of Figure 1 is unclear, please correct it.
4. The reference format is inconsistent. Please correct it according to the format specified by the journal.
5. In lines 173-174, 190-192, and 209-210. The matrix content is not in the correct format, please correct it.
6. It is stated in this article that only the results of the FR, INOSIS, and TOPSIS methods are shown to keep the paper concise. However, the calculations illustrated in each research method are too simple, and it is difficult to understand how to obtain the solution results of each Table, which affects of readability of this paper. It is recommended that each research method be explained and described in an independent section, respectively.
7. This study proposed two research methods (MFR and INOSIS), However, it did not point out the advantages, appropriate used timing, and appropriate use for problem conditions of these two methods. It is difficult to see the applicability and practicality of these two methods.
8. The 100 test problems are mentioned in this study. What is the source? Is it an online test database? or is it 100 actual cases? Please explain clearly.
9. In line 381, Using Eqs. (15), (16), and (17) to prompt the application of the proposed ROS procedure, but equation (17) cannot be found in this paper. Please correct and confirm the correctness of all equation numbers to avoid affecting the readability of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your useful comments. We carefully incorporated/addressed your comments into the paper. Please find attached my response to your great comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report for the paper “A Procedure for Choosing among Different Solutions to the Multi-criteria Supplier Selection Problem”
The research presented in the article can be valuable, but certain changes are necessary to improve the quality of the submitted manuscript:
1. I suggest combining the Introduction with the Research Focus. I suggest combining the Introduction with the Research Focus. It would be valuable in this section to explain why the existing methods are not sufficient.
2. The Literature Review could be enhanced by adding a table gathering the methods used in SSPs.
3. In Section 4.1, in step ii, the Authors mention positive or negative criteria, i.e., monotonic criteria. Could non-monotonic criteria arise in such problems? What is suggested in such cases? In the example (line 142), criterion W2 is linguistically assessed as "Moderate," so why does its weight equal 0.42 when a different assessment system is suggested in the table above? This Table may be unnecessary if weights are arbitrarily assigned. Or maybe the 5-point scale is insufficient?
4. I would suggest you describe the differences in the modified version of FR in Section 4.2. In which step do the methods differ, and why are these modifications significant? It might be worth considering introducing the technique in a schematic. I propose introducing an algorithm and then a computational example. The current presentation format of the algorithm is unreadable. Additionally, it's important to justify why the double normalization applied in the proposed modification is superior.
5. Some explanations are also needed in subsection 4.3. All symbols should be clarified. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that such approaches, considering the distance from the ideal, are known in the literature. Among them are the Hellwig method or the DARP method.
6. The Appendix seems unnecessary because the methods are well-known. In my opinion, it would be much more valuable to comment on the differences between the original methods and their modifications in the appropriate subsections of Chapter 4.
7. The Conclusion chapter should be expanded. It is worth clearly stating the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approaches. What can be inferred from Table 7? Are the proposed modifications really necessary?
8. The manuscript should be checked for language correctness.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The entire manuscript should be checked for language correctness.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your useful comments. We carefully incorporated/addressed your comments into the paper. Please find attached my response to your great comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have provided detailed response to my previous comments. I appreciate that.
1. I agree that there is significance in to providing more alternative solutions. However, too many alternative solutions also means trouble in practice. There have been too many solutions as Multi-Criteria Supplier Selection Problem is a traditional well studied problem. There still needs a clear motivation, why existing method needs to be improved and what the improvements are made.
2. Proposing a comparison approach is a significant aspect.
3. The title seems only cover your second objective.
4. Reference list can be updated with the most recent and relevant high quality materials.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments. Please find attached the response.
Best,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my questions have been answered and improved, and I agree to accept in present form.
Author Response
Thanks for your help to improve the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your responses to the review and the revisions made.
Author Response
Thanks for your help to improve the paper.
