Dear Dr. Ghousi,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 20 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.

• 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 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,

Gabrijela Popovic

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. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

The submitted study delivers valuable insights through original research findings that have not previously been published.

The title clearly describes the topic, and according to the journal's guidelines, it has less than 250 characters.

The article is well written in standard American English, though a few minor issues could be addressed for enhanced clarity. The existing literature could be better cited because the article lacks the most recent respectable articles. For example, there are no papers from 2024, only two from 2023, only one from 2022, no references from 2021 and only two references from 2020. Altogether, the article has only five references from the last five years. Authors should consult more recent literature to make their research up to date.

The abstract is written clearly without references and has 226 words, less than the maximum length. The abstract describes the main objective of the research and explains the methodology without too many details. According to the journal's instructions, the abbreviations should not be included if possible. The recommendation for authors is to modify the abstract and retain fewer abbreviations. It is clear that some of the abbreviations have to remain, but I firmly believe that authors can rewrite the abstract to include less than 12 abbreviations as they have in the abstract at the moment.

The introduction is written like a funnel, providing broad information regarding the research issue and then narrowing it. However, the introduction is almost four pages long, and the authors should consider dividing it. It also lacks referencing methods and models in the text currently in the introduction. The methodology is conducted to a respectable technical standard and is documented adequately. However, the authors should elaborate more on their choice of the WASPAS method rather than some of the more recent methods. The conclusions drawn are clearly articulated and well-supported by the data presented.

Importantly, no pertinent discussion was needed regarding the ethics of experimentation and research integrity, and I appreciate that the authors have made the data available for further validation.

Several segments could be improved regarding the formatting of the paper. For example, Table 8 should be written in capital first letter. There needs to be an introduction of Figure 2 in the integral text. Numbers in Figure 3 are written in different fonts. Numbers 2 and 4 should be further away from the chart to be observed more clearly. The manuscript should be formatted by the instructions to meet the journal's formatting requirements.

There are also specific issues in the reference list. Several references are missing certain segments. For example, Keating & Shadwick (2002), Treynor (1965), Treynor (1966), Young (1991) and several others need pagination; Fox (2016) needs to include the name of the book, etc. Authors are advised to check references and unify the list. Some references are written in all caps, some with capitalisations of titles and others regularly. All references have to be written according to the journal rules.

Overall, this study contributes significantly to the field, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Reviewer #2: While the article's concept and the proposed WASPAS approach are intriguing, there are some deficiencies present in the article:

1-) The studies employing the WASPAS approach are not elaborated upon comprehensively.

2-)The benefits of the Augmented WASPAS approach compared to the WASPAS method are not thoroughly delineated.

3-) Examination of Table 10 reveals significant discrepancies in the rankings. The discrepancies require elucidation.

**********

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: Yes:  Vuk Mirčetić

Reviewer #2: 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

An Appraisal of Fund of Funds Efficiency Based on Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures: Application of an Augmented WASPAS Methodology

PONE-D-24-42417R1

Dear Dr. Rouzbeh Ghousi, 

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Gabrijela Popovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors successfully met the reviewer's requirements and addressed all aroused concerns, which improved the article's quality and made it suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments: