An assessment of factors for the cruise port of call selection: The modified fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

Thang Quyet Nguyen; Quynh Manh Doan; Lan Thi Tuyet Ngo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297293

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2023
27 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Mercedes Castro-Nuño, Editor PONE-D-23-31432An assessment of factors for the cruise port of call selection: The cognitive-gap model based on the modified fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy ProcessPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ngo, 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 Jan 11 2024 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, Mercedes Castro-Nuño 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The research problem is interesting and helpful in assessing selection factors (SFs) for the cruise port operators. The research process is also rigorous. However, there still are some questions need to be clarified before publication. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [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: Plos One(1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297293.r001
Revision 1
14 Dec 2023 Author Response The research problem is interesting and helpful in assessing selection factors (SFs) for the cruise port operators. The research process is also rigorous. However, there still are some questions need to be clarified before publication. Please consider the comments below: (1) The definition of gap is not so appropriate that may confuse readers. I suggest the title of the manuscript delete the gap expression. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the manuscript title to address this suggestion. (2) To make the paper more readable, the abstract should be presented as: introduction, purpose, method, result, and conclusion. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the manuscript abstract to address this suggestion. (3) The introduction should be enriched by some following suggestions: The Introduction must present the motivations of the study from the point of view of literature gaps. At present, the build-up of the motivations, including the contributions of the study, is quite messy. It is difficult to clearly assess the gaps that are advanced in this work. For example, you mentioned the modified fuzzy AHP without reviewing other approaches to tackling the prioritization of crucial factors in cruise port selection. How does the modified fuzzy AHP work in comparison with other MCDM or problem structuring techniques, e.g., DEMATEL, ANP, interpretive structural modelling, fuzzy decision maps, WINGS, entropy, CRITIC, SWARA, among others. There is a whole lot of literature on this topic. The choice of the modified fuzzy AHP must be properly motivated. Thus, I suggest that the introduction section must be written from a general perspective. The message should encompass the need for a better understanding of crucial choice factors in selecting a cruise port based on the literature and the necessary characteristics of the problem that requires the use of an MCDM method, and eventually the AHP. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the introduction section to address this suggestion. (4) In the literature review, the manuscript extensively analyses too many previous studies. However, some key articles about port selection are not incorporated. Authors should search relevant articles by keyword: “port selection” to find the key articles. Further, it will be better if references are updated to 2023. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the literature review section to update the newest research in terms of port selection. (5) The research framework fails to provide a thorough and robust justification of the proposed “gap model”. What is it all about? How does it advance our understanding of the cruise port selection problem? I suggest delete Section 3.1 since it is not necessary in the manuscript. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We deleted Section 3.1 as suggested. (6) The visualization Figure 2 for the original and affected weights between CFi and CFj , is a mistake, should be SFi and SFj. In fact, the figure cannot express the whole conception of the interrelation of SFs, and may confuse the readers. The mathematical description is clear enough. Accordingly, I suggest delete it out of the manuscript. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We deleted Figure 2 as suggested. (7) It has been argued that the selection of the research sample is of paramount importance. Accordingly, the paper should elucidate how experts are selected for interview. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the manuscript to elucidate how experts were selected for interview. (8) The paper mentions the term the "original weight" and the "affected weight". Please explain what they mean and how they are determined in the paper. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We would like to explain, as follows: Original weight is initial value assigned to selection factors (SFs), often in the context of a measurement or parameter. This kind of weight is determined by fuzz AHP. Meanwhile, affected weight is defined as the extent to which a criterion (i.e., SF) affects others. In our manuscript, this type of weight is estaimated via a direct-effect matrix. (9) Discussion is well-written. But, it will be better if authors compare empirical results with what has been done in the relevant literature. By doing so, the difference and similarity can be clearer. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the discussion section to address this suggestion. (10) Finally, there are some grammatical errors in the article, so it needs to be proofread by an English native speaker. Further. there are also several inconsistencies of mathematical notations throughout the manuscript. [Answer]: Thanks so much for the reviewer’s comment. We got our manuscript froopread by an English native speaker. Besides, mathematical notations throughout the manuscript were checked. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PlosOne.Responses.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297293.r002
3 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Mercedes Castro-Nuño, Editor An assessment of factors for the cruise port of call selection: The modified fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process PONE-D-23-31432R1 Dear Dr. Lan Thi Tuyet Ngo, 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, Mercedes Castro-Nuño Academic Editor PLOS ONE ____________________ Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The revision is probably OK! Now I can suggest publishing the paper in the journal. However, a proofreading is encouraged to do again ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297293.r003
Formally Accepted
25 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mercedes Castro-Nuño, Editor PONE-D-23-31432R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ngo, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Dr. Mercedes Castro-Nuño Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297293.r004

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 .