Use of the WASPAS Method to Select Suitable Helicopters for Aerial Activity Carried Out by the Military Police of the State of Rio de Janeiro

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

this manuscript does not represent the new decision making method and it is simple application of WASPAS method. 

Author Response

Initially, we would like to thank reviewer 1 for his collaboration, as it made us reflect on some points of the research and improve it.

Question 1:: “this manuscript does not represent the new decision-making method, and it is a simple application of the WASPAS method.”

 

Answer: In fact, our research does not represent a methodological novelty. However, its application to the selection of helicopters for police use is a significant contribution for managers and decision-makers, as it means a technical choice unbiased by subjective criteria. A native English speaker has proofread the text, and we hope that the inconsistencies noted may have been resolved.

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs to improve. However, the same problem is very interesting. The manuscript needs to be more readable. 

 

First, the tables should be tables, not screenshots (the same for formulas). In some tables, we have part of the text in Spanish. The rich picture should be made professionally. The intro to MCDA must be more widely marked, please write something about new approaches like SPOTIS, SIMUS, COMET, or DARIA-TOPSIS. The final ranking must be compared by using the proper coefficients, e.g., WS or rw (you can find them in: 'A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems'). Why WASPAS? The MCDA background should help to answer this question.  Tables 1 and 2 must be improved. Figures 3 and 4 should be equations, not fig. BTW why is this method used for normalization? This issue can help the reading of this paper: "why does the choice of normalization technique matter in decision-making?". Additionally, there is a missing future research direction in the last section. I do not exclude that after the re-review, further comments may expand this review.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Initially, we thank you for the suggestions made by Reviewer 2, as they showed us the opportunities to improve our research. Below we list the points that were improved:

1) The English text was proofread by a native speaker fluent in the language;

2) The figures and tables were edited in excel and inserted in word. They are no longer figures.

3) The equations were inserted and numbered.

4) In the introduction, we inserted two paragraphs about the context of multicriteria methods and cited SPOTIS, SIMUS, COMET, and DARIA-TOPSIS.

5) We insert the justifications for the rich freehand figure in the text.

6) We insert the justification for choosing the WASPAS method in the text.

7) A paragraph describing the whole structure of the article is inserted in the introduction.

8) We have inserted the practical implications and future research directions in conclusion and the abstract.

9) All changes are marked in red in the text.

I hope we have met the reviewer's expectations.

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

 

Reviewer 3 Report

#1. Alike the introduction of UAP in Abstract part, the corresponding sentences should be revised as: “The method used in the analysis was the weighted aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS), which from the application of a weighted sum process combined with a weighted product process.”

#2. Where is the structural description of this article in the Introduction part?

#3. The first paragraph in Section 2 seems redundant, please remove it.

#4. Page 4 Line 165, what does the superscript 7 of word aircraft refer to?

#5. Section 2.1 [Rich Picture] contains relatively less information. Considering that there are no Sections 2.2, 2.3 and so on, the reviewer wonders if it’s necessary to list such a separate section.

#6. All figures and tables must be cited correctly and accordingly in the main text.

#7. In Section 5.2, to express the opposite of benefit criteria, cost criteria are most used and well-accepted in the literature rather than disadvantage criteria.

#8. Authors balance the relationship between WSM and WPM by assigning different l and (1-l) values to them, where l is set as 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75. Authors should additionally discuss the situations when l = 0 and 1 to show the feasibility and effectiveness of the combination of WSM and WPM.

#9. To intuitively display the experimental results, a Radar map maybe helpful. An example Radar map in the MCDM fields refers to: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124724.

#10. Some minor issues in this paper:

(1). Line 39 Page 1, two [rescue]s appear.

(2). Line 78 Page 2, “2” should be the subscript of “km” to express the correct meaning.

(3). Lines 222 and 230 Page 5, the full name of AHP should be removed since it is mentioned before.

(4). Lines 229 Page 5, the full name of TOPSIS should be removed since it is mentioned before.

(5). Line 265 Page 6, UAP is inconsistent with its full name.

(6). Line 329 Page 9, Criteris should be revised accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Initially, we thank you for the suggestions made by Reviewer 3, as they showed us the opportunities to improve our research. Below we list the points that were improved:

Question 1. Alike the introduction of UAP in Abstract part, the corresponding sentences should be revised as: “The method used in the analysis was the weighted aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS), which from the application of a weighted sum process combined with a weighted product process.”

Answer: We have inserted at the end of the text a list of abbreviations where the acronym [UAP] is explained. The sentence referring to WASPAS has been revised.

Question 2. Where is the structural description of this article in the Introduction part?

Answer: A paragraph describing the whole structure of the article is inserted in the introduction.

Question 3. The first paragraph in Section 2 seems redundant, please remove it.

Answer: Suggestion answered. Done.

Question 4. Page 4 Line 165, what does the superscript 7 of word aircraft refer to?

Answer: Suggestion answered. Done.

Question 5. Section 2.1 [Rich Picture] contains relatively less information. Considering that there are no Sections 2.2, 2.3 and so on, the reviewer wonders if it’s necessary to list such a separate section.

Answer: Section 2.1 has been removed, and the text regarding [Rich Picture] has been expanded.

Question 6. All figures and tables must be cited correctly and accordingly in the main text.

Answer: Reviewer's suggestion was implemented.

Question 7. In Section 5.2, to express the opposite of benefit criteria, cost criteria are most used and well-accepted in the literature rather than disadvantage criteria.

Answer: Reviewer's suggestion was implemented. See line 418.

Question 8. Authors balance the relationship between WSM and WPM by assigning different l and (1-l) values to them, where l is set as 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75. Authors should additionally discuss the situations when l = 0 and 1 to show the feasibility and effectiveness of the combination of WSM and WPM.

Answer: The reviewer's suggestion was implemented, see table 7.

Question 9. To intuitively display the experimental results, a Radar map maybe helpful. An example Radar map in the MCDM fields refers to: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124724.

Answer: The reviewer's suggestion has been taken care of. We have included an illustration of the rank as a Radar. See figure 2.

Question 10. Some minor issues in this paper:

(1). Line 39 Page 1, two [rescue]s appear.

(2). Line 78 Page 2, “2” should be the subscript of “km” to express the correct meaning.

(3). Lines 222 and 230 Page 5, the full name of AHP should be removed since it is mentioned before.

(4). Lines 229 Page 5, the full name of TOPSIS should be removed since it is mentioned before.

(5). Line 265 Page 6, UAP is inconsistent with its full name.

(6). Line 329 Page 9, Criteris should be revised accordingly.

Answer: As for items 1 to 6, the authors state that they have been revised. Regarding item 5, we include a list of abbreviations used in the text at the end of the text, and the acronym UAP is described and explained.

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors proposed “Use of the WASPAS method to select suitable helicopters for the aerial activity carried out by the military police of the state of Rio De Janeiro”. However, the scientific merit of the proposed approach is unclear and certain revisions are required. Furthermore, many findings statements must be thoroughly substantiated in order to be more readable.

1.      The scientific contributions are not clearly highlighted.

2.      The paper has significant theoretical or experimental flaws that need to be fixed. Even the WASPAS method being employed is unclear and requires more explanation.

Additional suggestions:

·         Please adopt a consistent format throughout; for instance, the authors used upper case WASPAS throughout the whole text but used small letters for the article's title. The term WASPAS must typically be written in all capital letters. For the convenience of other readers, the WASPAS acronym (weighted aggregated sum product assessment) should be included.

·         Kindly add a period after each figure’s caption.

·         Rewrite the equation, and insert the equation with the equation tool rather than inserting it as the picture. The representation of the equation variable should be explained properly.

·         Figures are blurry, please use 300 dpi.

·         Please be careful with word and line spacing, such as in Lines 185, 311, 321, 464, etc.

·         Check the table caption “Table 2 (continued)”, line 298.

·         Include the table in table format rather than image format.

 

·         Cite the references according to the journal template.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

Initially, we thank you for the suggestions made by Reviewer 4, as they showed us the opportunities to improve our research. Below we list the points that were improved:

1) The English text was proofread by a native speaker fluent in the language;

2) The figures and tables were edited in excel and inserted in word. They are no longer figures.

3) The equations were inserted and numbered.

6) We insert the justification for choosing the WASPAS method in the text.

7) A paragraph describing the whole structure of the article is inserted in the introduction.

8) We have inserted the practical implications and future research directions in conclusion and the abstract.

9) All changes are marked in red in the text.

I hope we have met the reviewer's expectations.

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

 

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors need to consider the following points in order to improve the paper:

- The abstract should be improved as it does not provide information about the achieved results.

- Introduction - Please clearly summarize what specific advantages the application of WASPAS method brings over other MCMD methods like MABAC, VIKOR, MAIRCA etc? Discuss this in the introduction section with focus on the mentioned MCDM tools. Try to specify that and build a case for your research (focus on novelty). This should be presented in at least one paragraph.

- The literature review is important for showing that authors are familiar with relevant research literature for the proposed field. As a part of the literature review, you should include some more relevant papers with application of other mathematical tools in MCDM. You should extend the literature review section with recent approaches that deal with criteria weights in decision making field, like the following papers:

Karamaşa, Ç., Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D., Kookhdan, A., Mishra, A., & Ertürk, M. (2021). An extended single-valued neutrosophic AHP and MULTIMOORA method to evaluate the optimal training aircraft for flight training organizations. Facta Universitatis-Series Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 555-578. ;

Torğul, B., Demiralay, E., & Paksoy, T. (2022). Training aircraft selection for department of flight training in fuzzy environment. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(1), 264-289.;

Bakır, M., Akan, Ş., & Özdemir, E. (2021). Regional aircraft selection with fuzzy PIPRECIA and fuzzy MARCOS: A case study of the turkish airline industry. Facta Universitatis-Series Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 423-445.   

Where do you refer to Figures 1 and 2 in the text? Any figure used must also be referred to in the text. Please, enrich the text related to “Rich Picture”, section 2.1.

- Table 4 - How have you defined the criteria weights? What methodology you have used for this purpose?

- Add step-by-step calculations. Presenting only tables filled with numbers is not very useful. More profound discussion on results is needed.

- Equations used in WASPAS algorithm should be numerated. Also, the presentation of equations is of low quality and should be typed in MathType.

- Add a pseudo code for WASPAS method.

- Add flowchart of the model.

- Validation and robustness analysis are missing.

- Conclusion section - Add an outlook for the future work. Add limitations of the proposed model. Also, add one paragraph about how the proposed method can be applied to other real-life problems.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5

Initially, we thank you for the suggestions made by Reviewer 5, as they showed us the opportunities to improve our research. Below we list the points that were improved:

1) The English text was proofread by a native speaker fluent in the language;

2) The figures and tables were edited in excel and inserted in word. They are no longer figures.

3) The equations were inserted and numbered.

4) In the introduction, we inserted two paragraphs about the context of multicriteria methods and cited MABAC, VIKOR, MAIRCA.

5) We insert the justification for choosing the WASPAS method in the text.

6) A paragraph describing the whole structure of the article is inserted in the introduction.

7) We have inserted the practical implications and future research directions in conclusion and the abstract.

8) All changes are marked in red in the text.

9)  Regarding the literature review, the proposed article suggestions were inserted.

10) the References have been adjusted according to the MDPI style.

11) The authors used a python solution available at: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1HbLwXI4HkrmI-lsNzDtBOlCiwxfJltHi?usp=sharing

I hope we have met the reviewer's expectations.

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It may be accepted in its current form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

We thank you for your comments on the first review round and suggestions that have improved our work.
Best regards
Prof. Dr. Marcio Pereira Basilio

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved. Before accepting, some small issues must be improved. In introduction there is missing some references are missing, e.g.for, COMET, SPOTIS, SIMUS, DARIA-TOPSIS etc. Additionally, these acronyms should also be given in the full form; please google "COMET MCDA", "SPOTIS MCDA", and so on. Please give also future research directions. After that, the paper can be accepted as application work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

We appreciate your suggestions and will try to incorporate them into our research. Regarding the indicated methods, we have included eight references related to SPOTIS, COMET, and DARIA-TOPSIS. At the end of the paper, after the conclusion, we inserted a list of abbreviations and revised the acronyms. The formal aspects were all corrected.
In this way, I hope to have met your expectations.
Best Regads
Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio 
Prof. Dr. Marcos Santos
Prof. Gustavo Soares de Assis

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have well addressed my comments. However, there still exist two minor issues to be solved:

(1). Two figures are presented in this paper, and thus  Figure 3 (line 499) should be changed into Figure 2.

(2). In Table 7, the fourth header "WPM=0" has a same meaning with the eighth header "WSM=1" subject to WPM+WSM=1.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you for your suggestions, and we have made the proposed correction regarding the numbering of the figure in line 499. About table 7, we have made the change to λ=0 and λ=1. We believe it is more precise for the reader.

We hope to have attended to your request.

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors addressed some of the concerns that were previously mentioned. However, the scientific merit of the proposed approach must be adequately substantiated in order to be more readable.

·         Lack of ablation study. The majority of the multiple-criteria decision-making algorithms listed by the authors are weighted aggregated sum algorithms for product assessment. In such context, a model comparison is required.

·         Weights criterion are very crucial for problems involving multi-criteria decision making, thus the authors needs to clearly state who created the specification of the criterion weights and whether they were chosen at random or in accordance with domain knowledge expertise. How many subjects and expertise are included during questionnaires? Although the authors mentioned in Line 382 “crucial for problems involving multi-criteria decision making….,” but need to substantiate more detailed information.

1.      According to author, “WASPAS method ranked the Sikorsky UH-60 (Black Hawk) model in the first place, the Leonardo AW 139 model in second, and the Bell 412 model in third. These helicopters are well-known models in their fields, if then, how WASPAS satisfied the scientific merits of the study. Other existing multiple-criteria decision-making algorithms can solve the same issues if the questionnaires answer are available.

2.      The authors used 4 attribute of the weights criteria, that established 1 (irrelevant), 2 (not important), 3 (important), and 4 (very important), under what circumstances attributes are defined, please mentioned those attributes in a table with their importance.

3.      Figure 2 must explain clearly, and if at all possible, use a period (.) rather than a comma to denote numerical values.

Additional suggestions:

·         Please use the manuscript template in the correct format. Please pay particular attention to issues like the comma and decimal representation in numeric data, word and line space, figure captions, table and table contend alignment, etc.

·         Each figure’s caption should be followed by a period. For easy readability, the labels in Fig. 1 has to be updated. For instance, Figure 2. ……….. application of WASPA(.)

·         Please align the equations in center.

·         The empirical data in Table 2 should be presented concisely and with the proper use of commas. After the decimal, round to two digits.

·         In Table 3. Aircraft evaluation matrix, decimal should be used in place of the comma.

·         The data in Table 4 should align properly. Please pay attention to the space between the lines at 533, 543, and so on.

·         Replace the numbers in Table 7’s ranking column with a period (.).

·         Include abbreviations in the table for uniformity and easier readability; if necessary, you can omit the outline.

 

·         Cite the references according to the journal template, there are numerous errors in the citation, such as the use of capital letters in certain paper titles, while others use lowercase letters. Some publication years are printed in bold, while others are not, and some include page numbers while others do not. Additionally, while some authors’ initials are separated by spaces, some are not. Please revise thoroughly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

I salute you and hope to find you in good health. Likewise, I thank you for your contributions, which aim the improvement the work currently under review. Next, I will present the answers to your questions:

As with all research, some points will be addressed in future research. 1) The research article presented results from academic work that technically supports the acquisition of new aircraft for the military police of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Other multi-criteria methods could accomplish the result presented by WASPAS.

2) The calculation of the weights based on the questionnaires privileged the technical knowledge and experience of military aviation professionals focusing on police activity. Section 5.3 reports how the questionnaires were applied and explain how we obtained the weights.

3) Regarding the formatting issues, we reviewed and corrected all suggestions. Only, concerning figure 2, we could not put the decimal in place of the comma, the figure was produced in Microsoft Excel, and we did not find a solution for this issue.

4) As for the references, we have corrected the errors detected.

The new changes implemented are in red.

Thus, we thank you and hope to have met your expectations.

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Marcio P. Basilio

Prof. Dr. Marcos Santos

Prof. Gustavo Soares de Assis

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have suitably revised the manuscript. It is recommended for publishing as it is. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5

We thank you for your comments on the first review round and suggestions that have improved our work.
Best regards
Prof. Dr. Marcio Pereira Basilio

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors addressed some of the concerns that were previously mentioned. Authors should make a competent revision to the article before ignoring the comments. There are many rooms of improvement from the suggested technique to the final results, there are many areas that might be improved. However, the authors noted that they will take them into account in future work in the hopes that it will improve their study. Furthermore, for uniformity and easier readability, instead of claiming that a native speaker edited this document, please have it professionally edited. The equation numbers will look better if they are aligned to the right. Each figure’s caption should be followed by a period. It's crucial to display numbers accurately, and the same goes for Figure 2. Please pay attention to the word and line spacing in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

Compliments of custom. The authors appreciate the suggestions made in the thirteenth round of review. And we inform you that:
1) We have made the revisions to the numbering of the equations and placed them right-aligned;
2) We have revised the legends of the titles of tables and figures and placed the period;
3) We formatted figure 2 and corrected the numerical presentation;
4) we revisited the presentation of the numbers in the tables and corrected it.
5) Finally, we submitted the article for professional proofreading at MDPI English editing.

We hope that with these revisions, we have met the minimum expectations requested.

Best Regards
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf