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.
Based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Daniel S. Katz, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
ok
ok
ok
It can be accepted now.
Please take into account the reviewer comments.
Reviewer 3 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
Please see additional comments.
It can be accepted now.
ok
ok
ok
1. It is recommended to include in this introduction the questions to which it is intended to answer. Likewise, the gaps found in other decision tools must be specified, which justifies the application of other methodologies, such as the one proposed in the study.
2. It is recommended that the literature review that refers to the Aczel Alsina t-norm and t-conorm operators， intuitionistic fuzzy and decision making method be expanded, below references maybe considered to cite into the revision:
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
(1) Site evaluation of subsea tunnels with sightseeing function based on dynamic complex MARCOS method. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 199 (2024) 123041;
(2) Dual consistency-driven group decision making method based on fuzzy preference relation. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 238, 122228, 2024;
(3) A property perceived service quality evaluation method for public buildings based on multisource heterogeneous information fusion. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 122 (2023) 106070;
3.For the conclusions, it is advisable to highlight its strong points and apply them to the case study presented, introducing recommendations for decision-makers and researchers.
4.The authors should provide more detailed explanations of some of the concepts and theories introduced in the document, particularly for readers who may not be familiar with them. And, it would be helpful if the authors could provide more specific examples of how the proposed framework could be applied in practice.
5.Some minor issues such as typos, missing articles or prepositions, and occasional awkward phrasing were observed.
Please take into account the reviewer comments.
Reviewer 2 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
no comments
no comments
no comments
no comments
This paper studies Aczel Alsina t-norm and t-conorm based aggregation operators under linguistic interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy setting with application. It is interesting.
In section 9, the comparative analysis is weak. Please add some solid comparative analyses.
The weighted averaging and geometric operators have been extended into many fuzzy situations, while this paper just extends them into linguistic interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Such extensions are trivial.
In section 6.1, using entropy to define the attribute weights has been often used in existing literature.
In order to improve the novelty and scientific contribution, it would be better to propose a new method to determine the attribute weights.
The English writing is poor. There are some typos, grammatical errors and unsmooth expressions. Please improve the readability with help of professionals.
On t-norm and t-conorm based aggregation operators for decision-making, some important and related references are missing. Please refer to: IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 24(5)(2016) 1035-1047; Applied Soft Computing 77 (2019) 155-175; Applied Soft Computing, 107 (2021) 107383.
In the 471th line of section 6.1, “Using the LIVIFAAWA and LIVIFAAWG operators”, I cannot find where do it use LIVIFAAWG operator?
The article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.
Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by comparison.
The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results
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.