PONE-D-23-29808Analysis of influencing factors of review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects based on improved DEMATEL modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xiao,

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.

 Below you may find enclosed Reviewers' comments and suggestion. First Reviewer points out to the weak theoretical basis and research framework.  While novelty of the study is not required by our Journal, sound research framework is the critical issue. Both Reviewers agree that this area need to be improved in your manuscript. Second Reviewer brings more details to your attention such as the lack of information on the collection of documents that was used for the search of indicators or on the experts that were consulted on the influencing factors. They also suggest to point out some factor that may be considered as potential limitations of your study, such as focus on applied research projects. These are only most important issues raised, you may find the rest below, in the Review reports.Having read the manuscript myself I have to suggest you some additional changes that will improve it's clarity. I will list them now:- I believe there is a word missing at the beginning of line 35- in my opinion part "2.1 Previous studies for reviews multidisciplinary projects" is too focused on AI. It needs either more adequate title or slight change of focus so that AI will not dominate the discussion here- reference in line 111 is missing- speaking of adaptability of  the DEMATEL method, you should include some references or examples (lines 143-145)- how do you define "reviews efficiency"? It is crucial for understanding the study- were "project factors" and "reviews factors" suggested by experts or Authors?- why mean was used in the study? Have you considered using median or mode?- "So far, this method has been used in computer science, economics and management, social sciences and other fields to solve practical scientific problems." - lines 218-219 - references or examples are needed here- you refer to "improved DEMATEL", but do not explain how it is improved as compared with the original version- in my opinion questionnaire should be attached as a supporting file- I do not understand the notation in line 329- I would refrain from using word "significant" since it suggest statistical test were run.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 28 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,

Agata Sielska, 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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This research was funded by Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Plan Project grant number 2020B1010010005."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The authors were funded by Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Plan Project grant number 2020B1010010005."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The authors were funded by Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Plan Project grant number 2020B1010010005."     

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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 theoretical basis for the mechanisms presented in this study is very weak and unconvincing. The novelty of this manuscript is very inadequate. There are many similar studies. In addition, the research purpose and research framework of the manuscript are unclear. There are unaddressed issues in the paper that bear on the central conclusions of the paper.

Reviewer #2: The main objective of the study is to find out/elucidate the review process of interdisciplinary projects and enhance efficiency of this process (lines 58-59, 61). The authors address this well motivated challenge using DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Although the method was developed yet in the 1970s, it is becoming more and more popular in the recent years as it allows to identify prominence and roles played by particular factors in the cause-and-effect relationships in the complex systems of various types. The number of documents indexed in the Scopus database that contain the term “DEMATEL” in the title, in the abstract or among the keywords expanded in the last two decades. Until 2005 such documents were practically nonexistent, in 2011-2013 a number of such documents achieved a level of 100 per annum and this year the document count exceeded 800.

The authors follow a two-stage procedure to tackle the challenge. First, they search literature using the keywords “multidisciplinary and influencing factors”, “scientific research projects and influencing factors”, and “project reviews and indicators”. Then, in the course of consultations with experts in scientific research project management the final set of 14 factors was refined. They were assigned either to the category of the “project factors”:

F1) Technical capabilities,

F2) Financial capabilities,

F3) Profitability,

F4) Market factors,

F5) Time factors,

F6) Social factors,

F7) Psychological factors,

or to the category of “reviews factors”:

F8) Review methodology,

F9) Reviewer expertise,

F10) Feedback mechanisms,

F11) Review criteria,

F12) Stakeholder involvement,

F13) Transparency and openness,

F14) Continuous monitoring.

The manuscript doesn’t give any information on the collection of documents that was used for the search of indicators (Elsevier’s ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, open access publications of other science publishers?), in which years these documents were published, how many documents were browsed. The reader doesn’t know either who are the experts that were consulted on the influencing factors or how many experts were involved.

The inclusion of factors such as F3, F4, F6 and F12 suggests that the authors are interested in the applied research rather than in the theoretical one, although earlier they mention such outcomes of the research as “the emergence of innovative theoretical constructs” (lines 20-21) and pay attention to the possibility that “potential outcomes and impacts of the research are not immediately tangible” (lines 49-50). The legibility of the paper would increase if the authors clarified whether they are interested in applied research only (without referring to the theoretical research or mentioning this kind of research with a due disclaimer) or in both applied and theoretical research (in such case the applicability of factors F3, F4, F6 and F12 should be explained).

The factors F5 and F7, and to the lesser extent F10 and F14, indicate that the focus of the study is the interim review of the research projects rather than the projects that apply for funding. It would be useful to clarify this issue.

The experts provided also the scoring tables that were used to calculate the direct influence matrix and the standardized matrix. Then the total influence matrix was computed and the indicators of centrality/prominence and causality were evaluated. According to these indicators the reviewer expertise appeared to be the least significant factor, although earlier it was assumed that the requisite expertise of reviewers is needed (line 37), and in the description of factor F9 the expertise and experience of reviewers was assessed as being paramount (lines 190-191). Such a low rank of this factor requires some additional comment and explanation.

The definition of factor F8, the choice of properly structured, systemic review methodology that is tailored to multidisciplinary projects (lines 186-188), seems vague. The declared objectives of the study raise the expectations that specification of the review methodology will be the outcome of the analysis rather than one of generally defined factors.

**********

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

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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-29808R1Analysis of influencing factors of review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects based on improved DEMATEL modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xiao,

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.

I would like to thank the Authors for addressing my and the Reviewers’ comments. Unfortunately, two Reviewers are not satisfied with your answers. In their comments for the Revised  version of the manuscript (you may find the comments attached below), you can find the details of the issues that need to be addressed. The problems that need your attention are:

• Improving the language;
• Modifying the title, abstract and introduction according to the Reviewers’ comments;
• Introducing a separate ‘Discussion’ section (further restructuring of the manuscript is not required);
• Providing a clearer and more detailed explanation regarding the documents that were used to identify indicators;
• Providing a clearer and more detailed explanation regarding the procedure of choosing experts;
• Providing a more detailed explanation for why the factor F8 “Review methodology” was chosen;
• Including in the main text the information that the main focus is on applied research rather than theoretical research as well as on the interim research review rather than the research project review at the stage of the proposal submission;
• Providing an explanation for why the reviewer's expertise had the least effect on the review efficiency (2nd Reviewer states that this finding is very unintuitive and I agree with Them).

From my part, I accept all your answers and explanations within the text main body – with one exception. In my opinion change of the rating scale is a too minor change to address the method as an ‘improved’ one. It has been done before, for example in this study: Dytczak M, Ginda G (2016) DEMATEL-based ranking approaches — Procedury rangowania w metodzie DEMATEL. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej we Wrocławiu 2016 vol. 16 no. 3 Applicability of quantitative methods to economics, finance, and management, s. 191–202. Please, refer to the method as DEMATEL with a 5-point scale as the core algorithm is not changed in any way.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 01 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,

Agata Sielska, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 reviewer believes that the topic “Analysis of influencing factors of review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects based on improved DEMATEL model” is worthy of investigation. However, the following needs to be addressed. There are minor and major issues that should be corrected. I believe the paper could be further strengthened by added information about.

Please reorganize the manuscript at the journal request. Please change the reference format.

The language of this manuscript is very bad and needs help from native speakers.

The title of the manuscript should fully demonstrate the content of this study and the relevant subjects.

Abstracts should include the purpose and findings of the study.

Introduction . This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized?

This section should explain the study's context and research objective. Furthermore, the research gap needs to be narrowed after analyzing the previous studies. The research method is not adequately explained in the first section.

-Introduction, what authors wanted to convey. Here author must build research gap following the previous studies.-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? For example, information innovation and innovation network, what it requires, what are the new technologies, some recent issue highlights the importance. See the following: Digital green value co-creation behavior, digital green network embedding and digital green innovation performance: moderating effects of digital green network fragmentation.

Enhancing digital innovation for the sustainable transformation of manufacturing industry: a pressure-state-response system framework to perceptions of digital green innovation and its performance for green and intelligent manufacturing.

Developing a Conceptual Partner Selection Framework: Digital Green Innovation Management of Prefabricated Construction Enterprises for Sustainable Urban Development.

-Methodology: Model.. I suggest authors here build your main heading on Research and data methodology. Clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models (model testing approach).

There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion. It is especially problematic in the Introduction that brings up a number of findings from different areas without linking them together.

Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. See the following:Developing a Conceptual Partner Matching Framework for Digital Green Innovation of Agricultural High-End Equipment Manufacturing System Toward Agriculture 5.0: A Novel Niche Field Model Combined With Fuzzy VIKOR

More importantly, the choice of the variables should be explained in light of the theory and the prior literature on the topic. The arguments are simply relationships and causes very close to the replication of many studies dealing with the same thing.

The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in industrial structure upgrading in future research. Some recent issue highlights the importance: The Interaction Mechanism and Dynamic Evolution of Digital Green Innovation in the Integrated Green Building Supply Chain.

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature (New Energy-Driven Construction Industry: Digital Green Innovation Investment Project Selection of Photovoltaic Building Materials Enterprises Using an Integrated Fuzzy Decision Approach). Limitations and future research.

As any emprical study that use different approaches I would like to ask to introduce in the Conclusion section at least a paragraph containing the study limitations. I noticed some things in the paper but a synthesis of statements related to how the study is useful (or partially useful, since are required certain further analysis) and helps potential interested readers does not really exist. Maybe in addition to the last section of Conclusion it is beneficial to introduce a section called: Discussion.

.

Reviewer #2: The reader of the paper can anticipate a more detailed account of the way the researchers conducted their analyses. Unfortunately, the revised version of the manuscript offers limited additional specifics in this regard.

Regarding the comment about the collection of documents used to identify indicators, the authors simply cited in the revised manuscript the names of the large publication databases referenced by the reviewer (“Elsevier’s ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, open access publications”). The number of documents reviewed, types of publication sources utilized, and the method of narrowing down the set of documents in subsequent research stages are not disclosed. The reader is left without a clear understanding of how the relevant literature was fished out from the ocean of publications available nowadays.

The authors of the study revealed that the experts involved were predominantly from Pakistan, yet left the reader unaware of the reasoning behind this particular choice of the experts’ background. That appears quite perplexing, considering the paper is meant to tackle considerable challenges of reviewing complex interdisciplinary projects, which are known for their “myriad of research trajectories and a spectrum of expertise”. Once more, there is a lack of specific details regarding the number of experts and their characteristics are rather general (“from diverse backgrounds”, “well-qualified”, “served on various selection committees”).

The authors addressed the comments about the type of research projects and the type of review that are of interest to their paper and explained that their main focus is on applied research rather than theoretical research as well as on the interim research review rather than the research project review at the stage of the proposal submission. However, these points were not explicitly stated in the main body of the paper.

The explanation for why the factor F8 “Review methodology” is included does not fully address the doubts about the analysis's somewhat circular reasoning. In a general sense, methodology refers to the set of procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information pertaining to a particular subject, so the research project review methodology can be seen to encompass other factors listed in the paper. It is possible that the authors intended to refer to some particular aspect of the review methodology, but they did not make it clear.

The authors do not provide an explanation for why the reviewer's expertise had the least effect on the review efficiency, a finding that goes totally against expectations.

Reviewer #3: I consider the Authors' answers to the doubts and comments of the Reviewers to be adequate and exhaustive.

Reviewer #4: Overall: The research is based on the proven result, but it approaches with a different method DEMATEL model, which makes the research interesting. Overall, the research is very well presented in sections. Each section and subsection of the research is discussed rationally. The results sections make the study different than other research in the area. However, the Abstract (first half), and Introduction section make the study weaker, which must be improvised. The introduction section gives the feel of being prepared by paraphrasing software, needs improvement.

Title

• The title needs a correction grammatically.

• It may be specific to the problem rather than the complete scope of the study.

• It is better to reform the title with the right words to be attractive.

• English language and grammar must be improvised.

Abstract and Keywords

• The abstract needs improvement.

• It must provide a snapshot of current research rather an introduction.

• English language and grammar must be improvised.

• Keywords are acceptable.

Introduction

• This section is a literature review.

• It would be better to rename this section Literature Review or Background Study.

• There must be a separate section at the beginning talking about this research, maybe as 5w-1H, ending with the paragraph stating the flow of work.

• English language and grammar must be improvised.

• The study looks like prepared by paraphrasing software.

Literature Review

• This is a well-explained and justified section.

• It is acceptable and deserves appreciation.

Methodology

• This section is well presented with a very clear discussion.

• Line No. 180 “and currency of our data” needs to be rechecked.

Data acquisition in improved DEMATEL

• The work is well presented with a very clear understanding.

• Subsections have a much deserving title.

• It is well discussed, but some citations can make it more justified.

• Tests are well discussed and presented with clarifications.

Results and discussion

• The title of this section is well justified.

• It is very clear and evident to support the research.

• Some citations can make it better.

Conclusion

• The research is concluding as stated in the method section.

• The presentation of conclusions with bullets can be better for readers.

• English language and grammar must be improvised.

• Citations are essential to enhance the credibility of this study.

References

• The references are good.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

PONE-D-23-29808R2Analysis of influencing factors on review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects using DEMATEL with a 5-point scalePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xiao,

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.

One of the two Rewievers accepts your paper with no additional comments. Second Rewiever has doubts and having read the revised manuscript myself I agree that some issues still need improvement or clarification. Firstly, you still use phrase "improved DEMATEL" or "improved method" which leads to confusion. Please, change those phrases and refer to "5-point-scale" in all cases. This alone will help to clarify some of the doubts the Rewiever has with the "improved" algorithm.  Secondly, please add clear statement defining your objective and a potential research/literature gap you are trying to fill. Keep in mind that a novelty is not a publication criterion for PLOS ONE, but a goal needs to be clearly stated within the manuscript main body. Thirdly, it would be beneficial to, as the Rewiever suggests, "explain in more details in the data used in the case study, the data for the testing, the criterion for the accuracy, and others to claim these points". Please, refer to limitations of your study and research contributiond in the manuscript. The last issue is refers to the text formatting - please, remove bullets from the "conclusions" section. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 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,

Agata Sielska, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #3: I have no additional comments for the authors. I consider the answers and additions to be sufficient.

Reviewer #5: First of all, the paper “Analysis of influencing factors on review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects using DEMATEL with a 5-point scale” aims and scope match those of PLOS ONE, so the paper is adequate for this journal. This paper presents an application of improved DEMATEL method. However, based on my opinion it needs substantial improvements to be considered for publication in PLOS ONE. I would suggest a series of changes that in my opinion would improve the paper, in special for the reader.

- I have read several times the paper and I couldn’t find properly defined objective of the paper and the gap in the existing literature and/or practice. What is the innovative value of the contribution proposed by the authors?

- I can’t see your contributions? What are benefits of Improved DEMATEL over traditional one? Why do we need improvement? I would like to see comparisons of the results with existing approaches like below: Nila, B., & Roy, J. (2024). Analysis of Critical Success Factors of Logistics 4.0 using D-number based Pythagorean Fuzzy DEMATEL method. Decision Making Advances, 2(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma21202430; Chu, M., Li, B., & Yu, X. (2024). Identification of Key Factors of Digital Transformation of Manufacturing companies Using Hybrid DEMATEL Method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 7(1), 380–395. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame712024931; Mousavi, S. R., Sepehri, M., & Najafi, S. E. (2024). A Framework for Improving Patient Satisfaction by Reducing the Length of Stay in The Operation Suite Using the Combined DEMATEL-ANP Model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 7(2), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame722024882.

- In introduction section authors should provide more information about existing MCDM models for determining criteria weighs. Explain their benefits/weaknesses.

- Why you have used DEMATEL approach for determining criteria weights? Why not BWM, DIBR, FUCOM or Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) methods? These methods should be discussed. The authors need to discuss their contributions compared to those in related papers. The authors must clearly discuss the significance of the research problem in the first section.

- Show step by step algorithm for proposed methodology. You should explain in detail this methodology.

- What kind of novelty you have done?

- Explain in more details in the data used in the case study, the data for the testing, the criterion for the accuracy, and others to claim these points.

- Sensitivity analysis is missing. How can we judge these results? How should we know about the quality of these solutions? The improvement must be discussed.

- The conclusion section seems to rush to the end. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the model. No bullets should be used in your conclusion section.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

PONE-D-23-29808R3Analysis of influencing factors on review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects using DEMATEL with a 5-point scalePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xiao,

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 Nov 18 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,

Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: I believe that with each iteration of revisions, a good text becomes better and better. However, it seemed to me that such a process cannot be continued for too long, because often the better is the enemy of the good.

Reviewer #5: The paper looks much better after the revisions. Almost all my comments are well addressed. I have only a few more comments to be addressed:

> Comparisons DEMATEL with LBWA, FUCOM, BWM and other models is not well presented. More deed discussion about advantages and drawbacks must be presented.

> Source files for LBWA, FUCOM, BWM adn other methods must be cited. Cite references where these methods were presented for the first time.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

Analysis of influencing factors on review efficiency of multidisciplinary scientific research projects using DEMATEL with a 5-point scale

PONE-D-23-29808R4

Dear Dr. Xiao,

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,

Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #5: 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 #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: 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 #5: 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 #5: 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 #5: The authors have addressed the point of my concern. I am happy with their corrections. Hence, I would like to recommend this manuscript to be published.

**********

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 #5: No

**********