Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Used to Determine the Significance of the Contributing Factors for Generalized Travel Satisfaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, My comments on the paper is summarized as follows:

1) It can be noticed that the way of using of multi-criteria decision-making in this manuscript have been studied and applied for years in the previous literatures. So I suggest to the authors to use a recent method of multi-criteria decision-making like fuzzy AHP, intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP…. Because, from 1986 the AHP Method and its applications referring to major extensions and criticisms in the decision making problems. For example in the classical AHP method, the pair-wise comparison seems insufficient and too imprecise to capture the judgments of decision-makers. Therefore, fuzzy set theory is introduced into the pair-wise comparison of the AHP method to compensate with this deficiency and this technique is namely fuzzy AHP.

 

12) It is very interesting to compare the obtained results with other methodologies or techniques of multi-criteria decision-making like VIKOR, TODIM, PROMETHEE, ANP or TOPSIS.

 

13) The authors should elaborate more on the practical implications of their study, as well as the limitations of the study.

' 4) In the page 5 there are two paragraphs with same title "2.3 Questionnaire survey" and "2.4 Questionnaire survey "

   5) I suggest that the authors present the literature review in a separate section.

      66) The presentation of the results and conclusions were not enough; it should be highlighted.

 

 

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful review and recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully considered and revised the following issues. We hope you will be satisfied with our revisions. Please see the Revision Notes and Revised Manuscript for detailed revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID sustainability – 1880916

Title: «Analytic Hierarchy Process used to determine the significance of the contributing factors for generalized travel satisfaction».

 

Undoubtedly, the presented manuscript is relevant from a scientific and practical point of view. The authors focus on developing a Generalized Satisfaction with Travel Scale for Chinese travelers and exploring the influencing factors, so as to provide an efficient travel experience survey mechanism for relevant departments. Manuscript entitled "Analytic Hierarchy Process used to determine the significance of the contributing factors for generalized travel satisfaction" of interest to a highly ranked journal like "Sustainability".

 

This manuscript includes the next harmonious structure:

* Introduction (p. 1 – 3);

* Materials and Methods (p. 3 – 5);

* Results (p. 5 – 12);

* Discussion (p. 12 – 13);

* Conclusions (p. 13).

The figures and tables are appropriate, they properly show the data. So, they easy to interpret and understand by readers. References list is adequate and includes 42 titles.

 

 

The value of this work is significant.

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful review and encouraging comments. We are well aware that we have many shortcomings and will certainly make further efforts in our future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is seeming to be well-organized and structured and uses the appropriate methodologies, however, the topic has a clear national/local interest and in various points and sections needs improvement. There are many questions regarding the survey and the sample.

Comments

1. In the Abstract and the Introduction section, and in three different points authors present the purpose of the study but with some differences between them. Please make clearer the aim of the study. The Introduction section is well structured and complete; however, the topic is so wide that in my opinion, needs also to add a literature review section.

The last phrase of the Introduction section, which mentions research contribution, is unclear. I suggest to the authors erase the phrase, in any case, the contribution of the research is analysed better in the Conclusion section.

At the end of the section, I would suggest that the authors add a brief description of the structure of the paper.

2. I believe that for such an important subject it is necessary (as I mentioned above) to add a Literature review section.

3. In the subsection 2.1 (the title is subsection????) in lines 129 and 130, the authors mention that 'Finally, several experts in the field of transportation are invited to correct and revise the scale.' Are experts participated to the research? Which was their role? How many experts? (the several do not say nothing) Has be used a specific methodological approach with experts?

4. The authors give several details regarding the survey and the questionnaire in subsections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 (subsections 2.3 and 2.4 have the same title?????). At the same time, the authors do not mention: 

-Which was period (time) that the survey was done.

- Which was the research population? (generally, the authors did not provide any secondary data about the daily travelers’ load, transportation modes in the research area, etc.)

- How did they select the sample and what is the size of the sample 

- Are the sample representative? and

- can be generalized the findings?

5. The demographic analysis (3.1.1.) shows that the sample is not representative in my opinion (average age 38.80 years, with the SD of 12,304 -all the sample is between 25.50- 51 years old- and 74.38% have bachelor’s degree or above).

6. The methodologies are scattered in sections 2 and 3. Finally, at some point in subsection 3.2, the authors mention that the selected sample for the survey was 175. I estimate that the number is small for a city like Beijing with a huge number of travelers daily.

7. Both the discussion and the conclusions involve a considerable number of repetitions. Authors should avoid repetitions and limit themselves to substantive discussion and generalized conclusions.

8. No research limitations are presented, and the number of references could be enriched in a subject with a wide and significant international literature.

Author Response

Many thanks for your careful review and encouraging comments. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully discussed and addressed the following issues. We hope the revised manuscript would satisfy the publication requirements. Please see the Revision Notes and Revised Manuscript for detailed revisions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to accept this paper

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments