Model for Reverse Logistic Problem of Recycling under Stochastic Demand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No comment
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to our work.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper could be accepted in the current form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to our work.
Best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall quality of the paper was enhanced (considering the previous version),
Still, the novelty and contribution if this paper is limited, authors are invited to better describe the research gap that this paper is exploring.
The case study seems limited and authors are invited to better describe it;
Could you better describe the difference between your model and Das et al. model ?
A list of abbreviation would be great. What is ICC ?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to our work. The works we have done in line with your suggestions are explained in the document we sent in the Appendix. Thank you for your interest.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
the corrections are fine
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, author shares a model for reverse logistic problem of recycling under stochastic demand. The topic is interesting. However, the paper needs minor corrections to meet expectations of a journal. Some of my concerns are as follows:
- There is no rigour statistical test to judge about the significance of the method’s results. Without such a statistical test, the conclusion cannot be supported.
- Author has finished the manuscript with conclusion section.
- Add a transition paragraph and describe every section as the last paragraph of introduction.
- The results are not supported with proper validation. No comparative study is carried out.
- The results section is not convincing. More comparisons and sensitivity/stability analyses should be performed.
- The author should add the flowchart of the GAMS code which are used in the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The research paper is interesting and may contribute into the literature. However, I have following comments for the improvement:
- Generally, the abstract of paper is based on research aim/purpose, research method, and key findings. Abstract of this paper is well written but it is required to highlight the key findings of the study.
- The study organizing paragraph is missing. Author(s) should include a 'study organizing paragraph' in the end of the introduction section. The paragraph helps reader to understand the overall sequence and flow of your paper.
- First section need to be expand further to cover all the critical aspects of the topic related to recycling, logistics and sustainable/green supply chain.
- Literature review, in my point of view is weak, which required to improve and strengthen. Author(s) need to cite more latest researches in the relevant field to provide an up-to-date picture of work. Following articles can be cited in introduction and literature review sections to enrich this parts:
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0734242X20953893
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123357
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/13675567.2021.1872512
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s40815-020-00979-7
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/bse.2853
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13158479
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s10479-021-04275-x
http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4018/IJCEWM.2021070103
- Methodology section is fine.
- Results and discussion section: The paper presented and explained all the key findings but they did not discuss the findings with the help of previous published papers. Author(s) discussed their results very well but in a scientific paper, it is required to cover all the aspect and provide and cite the similar work of other researchers. I think author(s) need to polish this section, which will help to further highlight the researchers' work.
- Authors required to expand the policy implications according to their objectives and aim of the study.
Further, author(s) should check the grammatical and english errors. I suggest author(s) to proof-editing to the entire manuscript, it will significantly help to improve English language.
During review, I noticed that some references are not cited in the text and also some papers cited in the text but author(s) probably forgot to provide their references. Please recheck your entire references and citations.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a simplified reverse logistics model considering stochastic demands. The topic has been extensively focused in literature, and the current research has low contributions or novelty.
My comments are as follows and all of them are major comments:
1, The paper is poorly written with a huge amount of logical problems.
2, The literature review is poorly performed. Many papers used are from 20 years ago. RLND has been extensively focused, and no recent and relevant papers are used in this paper.
3, By ignoring the most relevant research to this paper, the authors concluded in lines 75-77 that "no research consider stochastic demand". However, this is not true and many papers have considered stochastic demands in RLND.
4, The method is not just about lack of novelty, but it is far away from the research frontier in this field. The model is not for a scientific paper but for a classroom exercise, and it has so many unrealistic assumptions, for example, line 227. The model is extremely poorly defined for an extremely simplified network.
5, The experiment, if we can call it, is just a game without any real-world data. It is just like a classroom exercise without any useful insights and contributions to RLND.
Overall, the paper needs extensive revisions.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents and develops a model for reverse logistic problem under stochastic demand. The paper is well written, clear and consice.
- However, I have a major concern about literature review: although your paper is about reverse logistic and you made your point how it is different from logistic or supply chain in general, the literature review on models with stochastic demand should cover any logistic or supply chain in general. can you provide further analysis on how stochastic demand is considered in logistic and why the Das model is chosen particularly ?
- The second point is about Das model-2020: can you clearly define (a table would be great) what is the difference between your model and his ? is it only stochastic demand ? or further elements/constraints were also investigated?
- Line 150: a table resuming what is done, what is not done and what your study brings is suitable for the sake of clarity.
- What is ICC ? recycling plant ?
