Dear Adis Puška , Miroslav Nedeljkovic, Živce Šarkocevic , Zoran Golubovic , Vladica Risti, Ilija Stojanovic

Reference is made to your article

Evaluation of Agricultural Machinery Using Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods

1- In page 3 you say: “method, the criteria for evaluating the alternatives must first be determined, followed by the alternatives”

I disagree, since you can’t select criteria if you don’t have the alternatives they have to evaluate. You are creating a set of conditions ignoring if they apply to the alternatives

2- “Determining the influence of criteria weights obtained through methods for the objective determination of criteria weights”

Criteria weights do not have any influence in alternatives selection, they only indicate relative importance of criteria. If you use objective criteria weights, then, yes, you do have criteria quantified by their importance relative to judging alternatives, however, they are not weights but a measure of quantity of information

3. In page 8 what is ‘rik’ in formula 5, and what ‘ej’? You should explain that ‘K’ is a negative constant used to find the average value of entropy in each criterion

I am puzzled that you use five different methods to determine the objective weights of the seven criteria? Why?

4- Page 15, Table 14. The fact that all the five methods give the same weight, which is quite logical and expected, makes evident that it is redundant to compute them by 5 different objective methods.

Really, I don’t understand the reason in describing a complex procedure when there is no need. What do you intend demonstrate with this? That all objective criteria are identical? Of course, they are, if you are using sound mathematical algorithms. However, I was surprised by you using MEREC, a great method, but that also implies a MCDM method. This is very interesting indeed, since it proves the soundness of this procedure

Hope that these few comments may be of help

Nolberto Munier