Effect of the Profile of the Decision Maker in the Search for Solutions in the Decision-Making Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

I am glad I have this opportunity to review your manuscript. Based on its reading, I have the following notes:

• abstract - each acronym should be explained firstly (e.g. P.HMCSGA, etc.); this section should be also prepared as one paragraph; without any citations (it should be your own text);
• abstract - there is not necessary to mention three phases of P-HMCSGA, more focus on your objective and results which are not mentioned at all;
• objective - it should be rapidly modified, does not meet SMART requirements at all, it is too general and consists of 2 sub-objectives;
• keywords - add more keywords and be more specific;
• introduction - it looks like your own text (without any citations, except for the last sentence). Is it only your own text? The last paragraph should be dedicated to the presentation of the structure of the article (how it is processed);
• theoretical background - it is totally missing (which is reflected in the number of references used);
• Proposed methodology - you present methodology which is not supported by adequate literature (but each phase is separately and appropriately described); 
• Proposed methodology - it is not a methodology of your article, so "right" methodology is missing;
• Methodology - methodology of your article should be prepared/created, define your objective, research sample, time period, indicators used, etc.;
• Experiments - if we consider this section as your results, it starts on page 6 (text before is still a methodology, resp. you can use it as theoretical background);
• Formulas - create legends for both formulas used (page 6, 7), 
• Tables - Table 4, 5, 6 should be described individually (or text should be divided into 3 paragraphs);
• Conclusions - the results achieved are not discussed (it consists of summarization of previous parts without adding any new information);
• extend the references and add more actual sources from recognized journals,
• rapidly reduce self-citations, please (25% is too much),
• check your manuscript from the formal point of view (e.g. table 2, different fonts, different size). 

I hope my comments could help you to improve your manuscript. I wish you all the best with this article and others in the future.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a new methodology for the incorporation of preferences of a  decision-maker in the search process for the solution of a multi-objective problem.

For the sake of the clarification, I suggest including in the paper the follows considerations:

1. I miss a background section
2. For each phase, it is needed a more detailed description of every step. Including pseudocode (if exists) and how each step works
3. The results table should show the outcome of the different algorithm used and all the problem instances. Now we only can see  the instance of 9 objectives and  100 projects and we do not know if the results are obtained with all the algorithms or only one or two or three
4. The paper should include the algorithms' parameters, thereby which  the operators are configured (crossover, mutation, etc) and their parameters (probability values, etc).
5. The authors should indicate how affects this methodology to the running time in all the process.
6. The authors should add a better explanation of the quality indicators used

Typos:
Use the same verbal tenses in all the paper.
In Table 2 the column with the name "result" is displaced.
In Figure 4.  is "Ins" the same that Instance?.
Delete the references in the abstract and add them in the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

thanks for your time you spent incorporating my comments/notes. Each of them I consider discussed and/or incorporated. I do not have other ones. 

Take care

Reviewer 2 Report

For me, it is ok for its publication