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' suggestions, this paper can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
It can be accepted now.
It can be accepted now.
It can be accepted now.
It can be accepted now.
According to the reviewer's comments and suggestion, you'll need minor revisions.
The authors revised the manuscript partly.
I mean that it would be better to propose some new methods to determine the weight vector for improving the scientific contribution of this paper in section 5. However, in this revised manuscript, the calculation of how the weight vector has been obtained is given in Step 3 on page 23 in section 6.1. Please form the calculation of how the weight vector has been obtained as a new method in section 5 instead of in section 6.1.
In sum, I suggest minor revision.
no comment
no comment
According to the reviewer's comments and suggestions, this paper needs minor revisions.
In general, the paper is well organized and the contents fit with the journal’s topics. In this paper, authors construct new aggregation operators (q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft prioritized weighted averagin operator; q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft prioritized weighted geometric operator) for the aggregation of a group of q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft numbers. The quality of the operator is shown by solving the problem related to Sustainable supplier selection. The strength of this paper is in the develop a new operators.
Well done. No comment
Well done. 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.
The English language in the paper is good. The literature review is at a good level. The structure of the paper, tables and figures is good. The hypotheses are well defined. The results are well explained.
Aims of the paper are well explained. The research question is well defined, the gaps of this research have been identified. The paper is written according to high technical and ethical standards. The methods used in the paper are described in detail.
The paper provides good directions for further future research. All data used in the paper are well explained. The conclusions are well drawn, and the limitations of the research are stated.
Based on all of the above, the paper should now be accepted for publication.
The authors have revised the manuscript partly. The following two issues still need to be solved.
Please add more solid comparative analyses in section 6.4.
In section 5, how to determine the weight vector (WV)? It would be better to propose some new methods to determine the weight vector for improving the scientific contribution of this paper. Please address this critical issue clearly.
In sum, I suggest major revision.
Based on the reviewers' comments and suggestions, this paper needs major revision. Please revise the manuscript. You will respond to changes in comments and suggestions with "red text" in the revised version, and then answer the comments and suggestions one by one.
[# 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 main objective of this article is to construct new aggregation operators (AOs) named "q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft prioritized weighted averaging" (q-ROFSPWA) operator and "q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft prioritized weighted geometric" (q-ROFSPWG) operator for the fusion of a group of q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft numbers and to tackle complexities and difficulties in existing operators. These AOs provide more effective information fusion tools for uncertain multi-attribute decision-making problems. Additionally, it was shown that the proposed AOs have a higher power of discriminating and are less sensitive to noise when it comes to evaluating the performances of sustainable logistic providers.
In my opinion, this is a clear and well-written paper. It has a potential to be accepted.
See above
See above
See above
In general, the paper is well organized and the contents fit with the journal’s topics. In this paper, authors construct new aggregation operators (q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft prioritized weighted average operator; q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft prioritized weighted geometric operator) for the aggregation of a group of q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft numbers. The quality of the operator is shown by solving the problem related to Sustainable supplier selection. The strength of this paper is in the development a new operators. My comments are as follows:
1. The abstract is loosely written. It is not as informative as expected. A standard abstract must present, without leaving any doubt, the objective of the paper precisely; the source of data and analytical approach used; key findings, and any policy implications and recommendations.
2. The literature review is too general and thus does not clarify which is the novelty of the current study. Expand the literature analysis. Please explain the manuscript's novelties in detail.
Well done. No comment.
My comments are as follows:
1. Extend Example 3.11 in a better way.
2. Write the proof of Theorem 4.6.
3. The authors should improve the conclusion.
4. The main contributions of the study should be clearly explained in both theoretical and practical aspects.
My comments on the technical improvement of the paper are as follows:
The English language is poor. Please check all parts of the manuscript and correct grammatical errors. The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proofreader because there are some linguistic mistakes that should be fixed.
Greetings,
The text of the paper is well done. English is good. The paper references are well done and express the text of the paper well. The structure of the paper is good, it is only necessary to further expand the selection Comparison analysis and discussion. The authors explained the research results in detail with tables. The research problem and methodology are well done. The results are well done and everything is explained in detail.
The paper is well defined and the research problem and research objectives are well done. In addition, the contribution of this research is clearly defined, which is the application of q-ROF in sustainable logistics. The application of this approach makes it possible to solve the research problem in a new way. The research gap is well defined. The only objection is to the sensitivity analysis. The scenarios need to be explained in more detail.
It is necessary to explain in more detail in the paper how the example from practice was formed. In what way was it formed, who are the experts and how did they evaluate, etc.
It is necessary to give guidelines for future research in the conclusion.
This paper studies a new approach to sustainable logistic processes with q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft information aggregation. It is interesting. Some critical comments are given for improving the quality.
The English writing should be improved with help of professionals. There are some typos, grammatical errors and unsmooth expressions.
The review of literature is not extensive. On prioritized weighted averaging and prioritized weighted geometric operators, some related references are missing. The following may be helpful: Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 12(4) (2015) 1-32; Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 30 (2016) 1719-1733. It is necessary to make overall review to follow the-state-of-art.
The prioritized weighted averaging and prioritized weighted geometric operators have been extended into many fuzzy situations, while this paper just extends them into q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft sets. Such extensions are trivial.
To improve the novelty, it is suggested to dig some novel properties except for the common properties such as Idempotency, Boundedness, Monotonicity, Shift Invariance, Homogeneit.
In section 5, how to determine the weight vector (WV)? It would be better to propose some new methods to determine the weight vector for improving the scientific contribution of this paper.
Please add more solid comparative analyses in section 6.
Please add more solid comparative analyses in section 6.
Please add more solid comparative analyses in section 6.
In sum, I suggest 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.