All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The revised version is suitable for publication.
Thank you
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Editor, and Author
I would like to inform you that the authors have completed all reviewers' comments one by one. Therefore, I recommend accepting this manuscript in "PeerJ Computer Science".
Best,
Suggested corrections have been made. I recommend that the study be published in its final form.
Suggested corrections have been made. I recommend that the study be published in its final form.
Suggested corrections have been made. I recommend that the study be published in its final form.
I examined the revised version. The corrections according to my remarks were made by the authors. So, I recommend that the paper may be accepted for publication.
No more comments, all the comments are addressed satisfactorily.
The obtained results are correct.
No more comments, all the comments are addressed satisfactorily.
Please revise your paper according to the reviewer's comments.
Thanks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Dear Editor,
I have completed the review of this research work carefully.
My report is in the attached file.
My decision is accepted with minor revision.
Regards
Please see my report is in the attached file.
Please see my report is in the attached file.
Please see my report is in the attached file.
*The use of English is clear, understandable, and sufficient. However, the symbol density and differences used in the study make it difficult to understand the study. Abbreviations used in the study should be explained. For example Definition 1.1. I think the definition of fuzzy set concept has been given. But it is not clear what F-set is. A similar situation exists in other definitions.It should be revised in this respect.
*Literature knowledge about hypersoft sets and fuzzy hypersoft sets should be expanded. For example, the following study and similar studies should be examined and included in the literature.
Fuzzy hypersoft sets and its application to decision-making." Theory and application of hypersoft set 50 (2021)
*Flowcharts, tables and figures in the study facilitate the understanding of the presented theory.
*In this study, a new decision making method has been developed and presented in detail.
*The presented concepts are examined in detail and the method is explained in detail.
Hypersoft sets is a topical issue that researchers have been working on recently. In this study, the authors enriched the structure in terms of decision making and brought a different perspective. The study is sufficient and appropriate in terms of Experimental design.
In this article, a new method called OOPCS is developed in a fuzzy interval-valued hyper-soft environment and a group decision making technique is given. An example is presented to show how this approach can be used. I think that the concepts and method presented in the study are valid and important in terms of studies that can be done on this subject.
In what follows, I mention some revisions that are necessary to improve the manuscript:
1. Review paper’s language, there are some grammatical errors and typos.
2. Please, show the motivation of this study and how it can be applied to address other issues.
3. The literture review is weak, it should be improved by mentioning the recent contributions such as (i) Mathematical analysis of generative adversarial networks based on complex picture fuzzy soft information; (ii) New generalization of fuzzy soft sets: $(a,b)$-Fuzzy soft sets; (iii) Generalized frame for orthopair fuzzy sets: $(m,n)$-Fuzzy sets and their applications to multi-criteria decision-making methods; (iv) (2,1)-Fuzzy sets: properties, weighted aggregated operators and their applications to multi-criteria decision-making methods .
4. Recheck the values given in Table 10 and 11.
5. Explain novelty of the proposed technique.
6. Add a conclusion section including future directions,
Investigate how the current concepts can be applied in the view of other hybridizations?
Please, see my basic comments
Please, see my basic comments
Please, see my basic comments
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.