Similarity of TOPSIS results based on criterion variability: Case study on public economic

Roman Vavrek; Jiří Bečica

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271951

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 4, 2021
1 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-21-35126Similarity of TOPSIS Results based on Criterion Variability: Case Study on Public EconomicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vavrek, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Additional Editor Comments: All reviewers have pointed out significant flaws in this manuscript. I recommend that the authors carefully revise this manuscript in accordance with these suggestions. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: This manuscript has high innovative value in method, but the language expression is more obscure. It is suggested that the authors should revise the language and grammar problems, and this manuscript should be reviewed again. Reviewer #2: The authors are recommended to construct a framework of MCDM methods and show where TOPSIS is situated in this framework. Instead of categorising the methods based on where they were originated (c.f. the 2nd paragraph of Introduction), the authors are recommended to classify them according to the methodology (e.g. parametric/non-parametric; pairwise/threshold, etc.; c.f. Diaz-Balteiro et al., 2017). Diaz-Balteiro, L., Gonzalez-Pachon, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075 The authors mention a considerable number of MCDM methods in Introduction but explain little about the applicability and feasibility of each method. A recommendation is that authors answer the following questions to justify the selection of TOPSIS: Which scenario(s) is each method to be used for? What is the context and features of the problem you are to solve in this paper (i.e. the sample case)? In Equation (4), why PIS and NIS are function of weight (w) rather than weighted normalised value (v)? As is shown in Equation (5), Euclidean distance is computed and thereby the correlation between criteria is uncaptured. The authors are recommended to discuss on this. Please define the problem (L.195 – L.293) in a concise manner and focus the pointers relevant to the applicability and feasibility of TOPSIS. The authors are recommended to state the contribution of this paper in an explicit manner. The findings of this paper are explicit (c.f. Conclusion), but what are the contributions of these findings? Are they relevant to the long-standing criticism of TOPSIS like rank reversal (Shin et al., 2013)? Please show the author’s name and year of publication in the in-text citation to improve the readability. Please add captions to the graphics. Proofreading is highly recommended. [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35126.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.r001
Revision 1
20 May 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1 C1: This manuscript has high innovative value in method, but the language expression is more obscure. It is suggested that the authors should revise the language and grammar problems, and this manuscript should be reviewed again. R: Thank you very much. The manuscript has undergone extensive and professional language proofreading, which has been carried out by an external entity. Reviewer #2 C1: The authors are recommended to construct a framework of MCDM methods and show where TOPSIS is situated in this framework. Instead of categorising the methods based on where they were originated (c.f. the 2nd paragraph of Introduction), the authors are recommended to classify them according to the methodology (e.g.parametric/non-parametric; pairwise/threshold, etc.; c.f. Diaz-Balteiro et al., 2017). R: The framework of MCDM methods is created and added in the Introduction. The recommended source is also added in the references. C2: The authors mention a considerable number of MCDM methods in Introduction but explain little about the applicability and feasibility of each method. A recommendation is that authors answer the following questions to justify the selection of TOPSIS: Which scenario(s) is each method to be used for? What is the context and features of the problem you are to solve in this paper (i.e. the sample case)? R: The applicability and feasibility of each method discussed in the Introduction is described via 2 new classifications, this way the selection of TOPSIS is explained. The sample case is described too. C3: In Equation (4), why PIS and NIS are function of weight (w) rather than weighted normalised value (v)? R: Thanks for reporting an error in the formula. The error is fixed. C4: As is shown in Equation (5), Euclidean distance is computed and thereby the correlation between criteria is uncaptured. The authors are recommended to discuss on this. R: Euclidean distance is the square root of the sum of squared differences between corresponding elements of the two vectors. It's a reverse measure of similarity: the smaller the Euclidean distance, the greater the similarity between X and Y. Euclidean distance is appropriate for data measured on the same scale that is our case (see criteria R1-R6). Correlation coefficient is (inversely) related to the Euclidean distance when the variables have been standardized, removing differences in scale. C5: Please define the problem (L.195 – L.293) in a concise manner and focus the pointers relevant to the applicability and feasibility of TOPSIS. R: The problem is defined in the context of TOPSIS and its applicability and feasibility. C6: The authors are recommended to state the contribution of this paper in an explicit manner. The findings of this paper are explicit (c.f. Conclusion), but what are the contributions of these findings? Are they relevant to the long-standing criticism of TOPSIS like rank reversal (Shin et al., 2013)? R: The contribution of this manuscript is added/defined in an explicit manner. C7: Please show the author’s name and year of publication in the in-text citation to improve the readability. R: We totally agree with you that the author’s name and year of publication in the in-text citation improve the readability. The manuscript is prepared according to the formal requirements of the journal, which requires the authors to be listed using numbers. C8: Please add captions to the graphics. R: Captions are added to each figure. C9: Proofreading is highly recommended. R: The manuscript has undergone extensive and professional language proofreading, which has been carried out by an external entity. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.r002
4 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-21-35126R1Similarity of TOPSIS Results based on Criterion Variability: Case Study on Public EconomicPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Vavrek, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors put the detailed taxonomy of MCDM methods in the Introduction, which makes the Introduction less focused. For instead, the authors are recommended to elaborate on the taxonomy (some charts will improve the readability) in a following section and to justify the feasibility of TOPSIS thereby. You might go through the taxonomy (only one metric for classification but do not put origin and methods together) in Introduction in a succinct way but focus on the main issue and contribution of this manuscript in the Introduction. Reviewers' comments: Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The authors have done a good job of revision, and the paper meets the publication requirements of this journal. Reviewer #2: The authors made significant revisions, which improves the readability of the manuscript. However, the manuscript needs better organisation. The authors put the detailed taxonomy of MCDM methods in the Introduction, which makes the Introduction less focused. For instead, the authors are recommended to elaborate on the taxonomy (some charts will improve the readability) in a following section and to justify the feasibility of TOPSIS thereby. You might go through the taxonomy (only one metric for classification but do not put origin and methods together) in Introduction in a succinct way but focus on the main issue and contribution of this manuscript in the Introduction. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.r003
Revision 2
9 Jul 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1 C1: The authors have done a good job of revision, and the paper meets the publication requirements of this journal. R: Thank you very much for appreciating the adjustments made and the time devoted to it. Reviewer #2 C1: The authors made significant revisions, which improves the readability of the manuscript. However, the manuscript needs better organisation. The authors put the detailed taxonomy of MCDM methods in the Introduction, which makes the Introduction less focused. For instead, the authors are recommended to elaborate on the taxonomy (some charts will improve the readability) in a following section and to justify the feasibility of TOPSIS thereby. You might go through the taxonomy (only one metric for classification but do not put origin and methods together) in Introduction in a succinct way but focus on the main issue and contribution of this manuscript in the Introduction. R: Thank you very much for appreciating the adjustments made. The Introduction is rewritten. Origin description is deleted, only one metric for classification is described using a chart. With these changes (also text reducing), more emphasis is placed on the feasibility of TOPSIS and we more focus on the main issue and contribution of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.r004
12 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor Similarity of TOPSIS Results based on Criterion Variability: Case Study on Public Economic PONE-D-21-35126R2 Dear Dr. Vavrek, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Jul 2022 Acceptance Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-21-35126R2 Similarity of TOPSIS Results based on Criterion Variability: Case Study on Public Economic Dear Dr. Vavrek: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. Xingwei Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .