A review (Please help me to correct the review, Thanks in advance) 0- I think the paper is similar to paper “A”, But in this paper, you have used the Z model and factors are divided into 2 key categories. You also used the model in Japan. 1- It is necessary to explain how you have selected those criteria. (By previous studies? By experts? How?) 2- 2nd page, 3rd Paragraph: (Port, 1990) should be changed to (Porter, 1990). 3- 2nd page: You’ve mentioned “Hensher (2008)”. It should be added at the end of the paper (references). 4- 3rd page: “Chen et al. (2013)” should be changed to “Chen (2013)”. 5- 3rd page, last paragraph: “company capacity” should be changed to “financial capacity”. 6- There is a problem with numbering the sections. In fact, Section 4 should have been numbered as Section 3. Section 5 should have been numbered as Section 4. Section 6 should have been numbered as Section 5. 7- In section 4, you’ve presented “A and B”, but there is no reference. Please write their references. 8- In references: "A" Should have been written after "B" 9- Table 2: It is better “A” changes to “B”. 10- I think the calculation has a problem in weighting. Results are against the philosophy of this method. What’s the philosophy of this method? ..... Values are the same. Then W1 will be 0 in this method. In this method, differences between values define final weights. More differences = more importance. Now in the paper, we have: .... It is clear that X4 should be more important than X2, but the result doesn’t show that. Another example in the paper: ... It’s clear that X4 should be more important than X10, but the result doesn’t show that. Then something is wrong. 11- 12. On page 6 step 3 we have: ----- 12. On page 6 step 3 we have: ---- On page 8 we have: ---- Are they the same?

How can I check myEnglish note? I've written something but I'm not sure it is completely correct. It is necessary to explain how you have selected those criteria. (By previous studies? By experts? How?) 2nd page, 3rd Paragraph: (Port, 1990) should be changed to (Porter, 1990). You’ve mentioned “Hensher (2008)”, on 2nd page. It should be added at the end of the paper (references). 3rd page: “Chen et al. (2013)” should be changed to “Chen (2013)”. 3rd page, last paragraph: “company capacity” should be changed to “financial capacity”. There is a problem with numbering the sections. In fact Section 4 should have been numbered as Section 3. Section 5 should have been numbered as Section 4. Section 6 should have been numbered as Section 5. In section 4, you’ve presented “A and B”, but there is no reference. Please write their references. In references: "A" Should have been written after "B" Table 2: It is better “A” changes to “B”. 11. I think the calculation has a problem in weighting. Results are against the philosophy of this method. What’s the philosophy of this method?..... Values are the same. Then W1 will be 0 in this method. In this method, differences between values define final weights. More differences = more importance. Now in the paper we have: .... It is clear that X4 should be more important than X2, but the result doesn’t show that. Another example in the paper: ... It’s clear that X4 should be more important than X10, but the result doesn’t show that. Then something is wrong.