Experimental Study on the Risk Preference Characteristics of Members in Supply Chain Emergencies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

By using the prospect theory and modifying the DOSPERT scale, it was possible to assess the consistency between members' risk preferences in the traditional risk sector and supply chain emergencies. In the emergency field and its supply chain sub-emergencies, the impact of time constraint on members' risk preferences and decision-making behavior was investigated. The empirical study serves as the foundation for the conclusions. First, conventional risk and emergencies can be used to gauge risk preference. Second, the members tend to be risk averse in the absence of time constraints, and the level of risk aversion decreases under time constraints. The greatest influence on natural disaster events is time pressure. Thirdly, while the change in risk preference is inconsistent with traditional hazards and crises, it is consistent with the four different categories of supply chain emergencies. This study may serve as a decision-making guide for the creation of a supply chain emergency coordination scheme since it shows the evolution trend of risk choice and reveals the relationship between preference and time pressure. my comments are below

It is possible to improve the abstract by rewriting it. The first time an acronym is used in the paper's body, it should be defined. Acronyms should be defined in the Abstract. State what is DOSPERT in abstract

The authors ought to take into account more recent studies in the area of their study. 

It is important to write in-depth descriptions of the method/approach used in the proposed work.

You have demonstrated that their approach can produce more acceptable results, but you have not mentioned how or what the results of such a solution would actually be in practice.

The introduction section can be expanded to include the problems with the current work and how the suggested algorithms/approaches can be utilized to solve them. Define the supply chain in the introduction section 

To help readers grasp the place of the research in the body of knowledge, authors must strengthen the literature review.

What is the planned work's motivation? The goals of the proposed work and any research gaps should be explicably supported.

Add a reference after the name of the author like in Kahneman and Tversky, and in all parts of the paper. 

Use more statistics analysis in Table 8.

Define the 9 fields of supply chain conventional risk 

State and how to compute the correlation between the conventional risk fields and the risk preference and risk preference and environment of supply chain risk decision-making. Need detailed explanation of the preprocessing steps.

Apply some statistical methods to insure the questionnaire is consistent.

Discuss the future plans with respect to the research state of progress and its limitations.

By using the prospect theory and modifying the DOSPERT scale, it was possible to assess the consistency between members' risk preferences in the traditional risk sector and supply chain emergencies. In the emergency field and its supply chain sub-emergencies, the impact of time constraint on members' risk preferences and decision-making behavior was investigated. The empirical study serves as the foundation for the conclusions. First, conventional risk and emergencies can be used to gauge risk preference. Second, the members tend to be risk averse in the absence of time constraints, and the level of risk aversion decreases under time constraints. The greatest influence on natural disaster events is time pressure. Thirdly, while the change in risk preference is inconsistent with traditional hazards and crises, it is consistent with the four different categories of supply chain emergencies. This study may serve as a decision-making guide for the creation of a supply chain emergency coordination scheme since it shows the evolution trend of risk choice and reveals the relationship between preference and time pressure. my comments are below

It is possible to improve the abstract by rewriting it. The first time an acronym is used in the paper's body, it should be defined. Acronyms should be defined in the Abstract. State what is DOSPERT in abstract

The authors ought to take into account more recent studies in the area of their study. 

It is important to write in-depth descriptions of the method/approach used in the proposed work.

You have demonstrated that their approach can produce more acceptable results, but you have not mentioned how or what the results of such a solution would actually be in practice.

The introduction section can be expanded to include the problems with the current work and how the suggested algorithms/approaches can be utilized to solve them. Define the supply chain in the introduction section 

To help readers grasp the place of the research in the body of knowledge, authors must strengthen the literature review.

What is the planned work's motivation? The goals of the proposed work and any research gaps should be explicably supported.

Add a reference after the name of the author like in Kahneman and Tversky, and in all parts of the paper. 

Use more statistics analysis in Table 8.

Define the 9 fields of supply chain conventional risk 

State and how to compute the correlation between the conventional risk fields and the risk preference and risk preference and environment of supply chain risk decision-making. Need detailed explanation of the preprocessing steps.

Apply some statistical methods to insure the questionnaire is consistent.

Discuss the future plans with respect to the research state of progress and its limitations.

Author Response

Dear editor,
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to the referees’ and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response.Please refer to the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Thank you for inviting me to review the paper entitled Experimental Study on the risk preference characteristics of Members in supply chain emergencies. Overall, the paper is topical and enlightening and speaks to measuring members’ risk preferences from a supply chain risk perspective. In applied sciences, concepts such as risk preference affecting decision-makers have long been relevant research and discussion topics. The frame form of Weber's scale, the questionnaire, and the Subject statistics and experimentation techniques are therefore appropriate for this study. The paper tests three hypotheses in three analyses of the experiment, which are relevant to results. However, there are several fundamental analytical weaknesses.

First, the discussion section could be more robust. It should be able to compare with prior studies. We will compare similar results from previous studies to either deny or prove hypotheses. Comparison will concentrate on similar results from previous studies to verify or deny hypotheses. Much of the research of past pioneers in the field and research in progress in this decade will support this review.

Second, it is worth noting the limitations of the study, in particular, the number of students to whom the questionnaires were distributed. Moreover, the results would have been different if the number of students from other countries had been higher.

Third, the conclusions summarize those key messages and suggest further research.

Author Response

Dear editor,

We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to the referees’ and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response. Please refer to the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is quite interesting and relevant to the aims and scope of the Journal, but the content of the article contains some major flaws. For example, after formula (1), coefficients $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ are constantly mentioned. However, there is no coefficient $\alpha$ in the formula itself. Thus, many of the results of the article become irreproducible.

My recommendation is that the paper should be carefully revised in order to present the proposed methodology in a way that can be reproducible by other scientists.

Author Response

Dear editor,

We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to the referees’ and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response. Please refer to the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is revised well. It can be published in the present form.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear editor,

         We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to the referees’ and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response. Please refer to the supplement and text for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my previous review, I noted the presence of a large number of negligences in the mathematical part of the article, which led to the irreproducibility of the authors' results. My recommendation was that the paper should be carefully revised in order to present the proposed methodology in a way that can be reproducible by other scientists. 

Unfortunately, my recommendation was ignored. 

Below I will give some examples of such negligence.

1. Line 230 (``The values of prospects are shown in 230 the following equation:''): Unfortunately, expressions (1) and (2) are not equations.

2. Lines 233-236 (``equations'' (2)-(3)): What is the point of introducing the variable $\Delta x_i$ instead of the already introduced variable $x$? As I understand it, equation (3) is simply copied from another source and the authors decided not to waste time converting it using the notation of this article. If the new designation makes sense, then why is the meaning of the index $i$ not explained? I consider this approach unacceptable for a serious scientific article.

3. Lines 249-250 (``As showed in Table 1. .... E(A)-E(B) is the expected 250 difference of A relative to B.''): However, the table shows expressions for EV(A)-EV(B).

I note that these are just a few examples of errors that make the results of the article irreproducible. The real number of mistakes and negligence is huge!

Based on the above, I must state that the paper does not reach the level of relevancy and theoretical explanation of the observed phenomena to be published in a scientific journal. Thus, I cannot recommend this paper for publication. 

Author Response

Dear editor,

        We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to the referees’ and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response. Please refer to the supplement and text for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

In my previous reviews, I noted the presence of a large number of negligences in the mathematical part of the article, which led to the irreproducibility of the authors' results. My recommendation was that the paper should be carefully revised in order to present the proposed methodology in a way that can be reproducible by other scientists.

In the current version of the article, the authors corrected the errors that I pointed out. But now the content of the article raises even more questions. The authors state that this paper aims to measure the risk preference of members from the perspective of supply chain risk. However, in fact, the article does not contain any concrete mathematical model that could be used in practice. In fact, the authors limited themselves only to general reasoning. These arguments can be interpreted by different scientists in different ways. As a result, different results can be obtained. As a consequence, there will be no reproducibility of the results. But reproducibility is the cornerstone of the scientific method. Thus I must state again that the paper does not reach the level of theoretical explanation of the observed phenomena to be published in a scientific journal.

Author Response

Dear editor,

 We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions and reinterpretation according to the referees’ and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response. Please refer to the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx