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 paper can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claudio Ardagna, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
it is ok now
everything is fine
no comments
Good
Good
Satisfied
The improved the paper according to my comments. Therefore, I accepted for publication.
The author must improve the paper accordingly to all comments of the three reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
poor. additional documents attached.
more in-depth analysis is required. additional documents attached.
no sensitivity analysis or comparisons with the other methods are included to validate the present methods outcomes. additional documents attached.
additional documents attached.
The basic of this paper is very good.
The experiment results of this paper is clearly designed.
The validity of the finding is clear and compared with the existing results.
The authors of the paper describe their proposed approach for The Technique of Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) Based On The Triangular Q2 Rung Fuzzy Numbers (TR-Q-ROFNS) With Applications In Best Coffee Brand Selection. The topic is interesting and with possible applicability in the future. However, the paper needs several improvements:
1.An abstract should address these questions: what are you trying to do, why, what you found and what is the significance of your findings. Rewrite and improve.
2. There are several studies already developed in the literature. What is the utility of your proposed study is better than previous.
3. Comparative discussion needs further explanation. Please do more work on it.
4. Please improve the conclusion section. Also, limitations in the developed approach should be discussed in the conclusions section.
5. The notations used should be rechecked.
6. The writing is recommended to be improved. The authors are suggested to proofread paper and restructuring of sentences are required for the entire manuscript.
The paper is well-written and easy to follow. The introduction provides sufficient background on the topic and clearly states the research questions. The literature review is comprehensive and relevant. The methodology is described in detail, and the results are presented clearly. The conclusion summarizes the main findings and their implications.
no comment
no comment
I have a few suggestions to improve the manuscript:
In the introduction, the authors should provide more context on the South African coffee market. For example, they could discuss the size of the market, the major players, and the trends in coffee consumption.
In the literature review, the authors should discuss the limitations of previous studies on coffee brand selection. This would help to highlight the contribution of the current study.
In the methodology section, the authors should provide more information on the sampling method. For example, they could discuss how they selected the participants and how they ensured that the sample was representative of the South African population.
In the results section, the authors should provide more interpretation of the findings. For example, they could discuss the implications of the findings for coffee brands and marketers.
Compare the results with existing studies to highlight the study's contribution.
In the conclusion, the authors should discuss the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.
Suggest specific areas for future research to build on the findings of this study.
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.