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 revised conversion (V3), this article can be accepted for publication.
Dear authors,
In this article, the authors cite 153 references, which is too many. In this case, you only need to cite references related to Fuzzy Sets and Fermatean Fuzzy Sets, and reduce citations to other references.
Editor‘s comments:
1. Please confirm whether the references from these reviewers’ suggestions are really needed. Please cite only necessary references in this article.
2. In the introduction, I read "The authorities who directly affect the decision-making process and make the final decisions are the decision-makers. Therefore, decision-makers who carry out the decision-making process are considered important actors in MCDM problems. Decision-makers are also individuals who understand the importance of their decisions and think about how these decisions are made [1]." In [1], I don't see any content that supports these sentences.
Therefore, this article needs minor revisions.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors improved the paper sufficiently and I think it can be accepted in the current form.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
All the reviewers' comments have been addressed carefully and sufficiently. The revisions are rational from my point of view. I think the current version of the paper can be accepted.
It can be accepted now.
It can be accepted now.
It can be accepted now.
It can be accepted now.
Based on the three reviewers' comments and suggestions, this manuscript needs major revisions.
[# 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: The review process has identified that the English language MUST be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
English can be improved
Literature references are sufficient and recent
Some figures are poorly prepared and are in bad resolution
no comment
no comment
This study applies an existing decision-making framework, the Interval Valued Fermatean Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process combined with Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (IVFF-AHP-TOPSIS), to enhance risk assessment for plastic injection molding machines.
The paper tackles an interesting and complex decision problem with a sound methodological basis. Its preliminaries and literature review are well-prepared, and the inclusion of sensitivity analysis strengthens the reliability of the findings. The discussion section is insightful and highlights the importance of incorporating new parameters into risk assessment.
By introducing sub-decision-maker groups for each criterion, the approach offers a dynamic and expertise-driven evaluation structure. While the application of IVFF-AHP-TOPSIS in this context is innovative, the study requires some revision to clarify its contributions, particularly distinguishing its use of existing methodologies from the development of novel concepts or frameworks.
See detailed list of suggested improvements and comments below:
- Please underline the main contribution of the study in the introduction to clarify whether it is a methodological paper or an application-focused one. The current abstract and introduction do not make this distinction clear.
- It is stated that the IVFF-AHP-TOPSIS method was developed by Alkan and Kahraman; this should be explicitly mentioned in the paper to clarify that it is being applied here rather than newly developed.
- Figure 1 is titled "Comparison IFSs, PFSs, and FFSs," but the figure itself contains FFN, PFN, and IFN. This inconsistency should be corrected.
- The quality of Figures 2 and 4 is poor. Please use vector graphics or high-resolution images to improve their readability and presentation.
- In equation (15), lambda_max requires correction for consistency, as it is used as lambdamax in next line. Also, carefully check all other equation to made symbols consistent and explained.
- The study would benefit from a comparison of the proposed approach with other methodologies or an explanation of why such a comparison is not feasible. Additionally, elaborate on the specific advantages of the proposed framework over a simpler AHP + TOPSIS combination to justify its complexity.
In this paper, the authors developed an MCDM model based on the AHP and TOPSIS methods in Fermatean fuzzy environment. This model was used for the plastic injection molding machine risk assessment study. The model was used for group decision-making.
The paper has certain qualities, but it is necessary to make major changes in order to be accepted for publication.
My comments are as follows:
1. Show application of methods step by step.
2. Show one calculation example for each step.
3. Add the limitations of the model through a separate section.
My comments are as follows:
1. Add a comparative analysis. Comparative analysis should prove the quality of the created model.
My comments are as follows:
1. Separate the introduction and literature analysis.
2. The introduction should have given answers about: Practical and Methodological Aims of the Study; Motivation for Conducting Research; The contributions of the study; Organization of the Paper. This should be some subsections. Part of the answer can already be found in the text, and part needs to be add.
3. The literature review is good in terms of the number of papers analyzed. However, the literature review should be divided into three subsections. The first deals with the problem, the second deals with the application of the AHP method, and the third deals with the application of the TOPSIS method. Also, the literature review should have more recent papers (period 2024-2025), such as: Kizielewicz, B., & Sałabun, W. (2024). SITW Method: A New Approach to Re-identifying Multi-criteria Weights in Complex Decision Analysis. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 1(1), 215-226; Biswas, A., Gazi, K. H., Sankar, P. M., & Ghosh, A. (2024). A Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Highway Restaurant Site Selection: AHP-TOPSIS Approach based on the Fuzzy Numbers. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 1-26.
[# 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 #]
4. Explain in detail why the AHP and TOPSIS methods were used to solve the problem in a fuzzy Fermatian environment, why other methods such as FUCOM, VIKOR, MABAC, etc. were not used, and why not some other type of fuzzy numbers.
5. In Figure 2, add sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis.
6. Add future research in the Conclusion.
This paper studies Risk assessment based on a new decision-making approach with fermatean fuzzy sets. It is interesting. I suggest major revision. Some comments are provided as follows.
The English writing should be polished with help of professionals since there are some typos and grammatical errors.
When mentioning MCDM, IFS and PFS in Introduction, the following related and important references should be commented as follows:
Information Sciences, 666 (2024) 120404; Expert Systems with Applications, 242 (2024) 122456; Applied Soft Computing, 154 (2024) 111374; Information Sciences, 668 (2024) 120526; Journal of Management Analytics, 11(3) (2024) 389-444; Knowledge-Based Systems, 301 (2024) 112300; Expert Systems with Applications, 262 (2025) 125342. It is necessary to make an overall review of literature to grasp the status of research.
[# 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 #]
The motivations should be elaborated. Why does this paper combine TOPSIS and AHP? What is the advantage of combining TOPSIS and AHP?
In section “Preliminaries on IVFFSs”, all definitions should be marked with citations.
In section “IVFFAHP-TOPSIS method”, please explain the reasonability and rationality on steps 4, 6-10.
Please elaborate the advantage of the proposed IVFFAHP-TOPSIS method with existing other methods.
Please add some solid comparative analyses in section “Discussion” to strengthen the convincingness and credibility of this paper.
In sum, I recommend major revision.
Please add some solid comparative analyses in section “Discussion” to strengthen the convincingness and credibility of this paper.
Please add some solid comparative analyses in section “Discussion” to strengthen the convincingness and credibility of this paper.
In sum, I recommend major revision.
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.