Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Theoretical/methodological issues
Abstract
General: The aim of the study, the main hypotheses should be included here, they are not at the moment.
In the text, the authors use the concepts of "cols chain logistics", "cold chain distribution/transport",
Line 23-26 - the sentence is not clear
An improved ant colony 23 algorithm combined with tabu search (IACATS), was proposed to solve above model due to the 24 advantages of improved ant colony algorithm in global search and the better local optimization 25 ability of the tabu search.
Line 27-29 - not clear sentence - Shouldn't be "the above-mentioned algorithm"?
The practicability of the model and the effectiveness of the above 26 improved algorithms are verified using an actual real case study.
Introduction
Line 44 - gases - did the Authors mean "greenhouse gases"?
Line 50 - "hot issue"? Better is "popular issue"
Line 52 - "above studies" - it should be "the above mentioned" studies.
From this moment I don't show the Authors such mistakes - the whole text should be revised because there are many similar errors and not clear sentences.
Line 53 - "cold chain transportation" - the Authors should shortly explain, what are relations of cold chain transportation and logistics - is the transportation a part of logistics. The same situation is with distribution - is it a part of logistics? In my opinion, they both are parts of logistics, but the decision about those relations should be made by the Authors themselves.
Literature review
129-133
The Authors presented what approaches the other scholars applied in their research, but don't mention shortly the results or methods - it should be added there. Thus, the 2.3. section is not consistent.
Line 163
"The advantages of TS in real applications have also been 163 demonstrated [43]." - what was the research field of source 43? (should be noted shortly)
Line 178-179
In summary, little research about cold chain transportation has considered the three factors of 178 cost, fresh degrees, and environmental pollution within the same model. - This sentence is not consistent with the whole section - please revise it carefully and adjust it to this sentence - this section is about the TS algorithm or approach to cold chain transportation problem? What is the relation with the cold chain logistics? (This is not the same, as I argued above)
Method
The method chosen to this study is ok - the assumptions, equations' description, factors - are ok and clear for the reader, but please unify the font (line 298)
Results
The results are correct, but they do not refer to the aim of the study and the topic of the paper. Please revise this section and add some few sentences linked to the previous parts of the study - literature review and main assumptions, for example, mentioned in the introduction.
Definitely, some parts of conclusion are missing. Firstly, the study has a few limitations, not mentioned in this section. Secondly, there is no discussion of what are managerial and scientific implications of this study. Is it helpful for managers and researchers? In what areas? In the short discussion, the authors should also refer to other literature sources from the "literature review" section. Without it, the paper is not complete. Thirdly, future research directions should be more widely described, the authors should add some sentences to keep the "flow" of the text.

Technical issues

General: The Authors have some problems with small and big letters - the same words are included as written with capital letters and in other places - with small letters, i.e. Customers (line 205,207), distribution center (205)
Title
Line 2-3 - typos - please revise
Abstract
Line 17 "high fresh degree food" - not clear, this should be probably "fresh food"?
Line 22 and 31 - are those two models the same model? One is LCFD-VRP and other is LCFD-VRP - this problem relates to Figure 1
Line 31-32 - language errors, it should be "model (...) helps to achieve"
"the LCFD-VRP model can effectively help achieve the 31 low -carbon -emission, multi-variety and low cost distribution of fresh agricultural products."
Introduction
Line 41-42
Please unify the name of the concept of cold chain logistics - it is "cold-chain logistics" and "cold chain logistics" in the whole text
Line 71-75- one long sentence should be divided into a few shorter ones
Literature review
Line 82 and 84, 91 and others
Please unify "cold chain logistics" - small or big letters? The same problem is with "cold chain logistics" and "cold chain logistic" - please revise it in the whole text
Similar problems with "carbon", for example, line 125
Line 161
If the Authors mention tabu search as TS in further text, they should include TS in line 161,
"The tabu search algorithm (TS) is a sub-heuristic algorithm..."
Line 182
"improved Ant colony Algorithm" - small or big letters
Line 301 - please revise - citation is written inappropriately
Line 311 - "This paper we combines" - please revise
Line 316 "4.1. Improved ant conoly algorithm" - please revise

Definitely, if this paper will be published, it should be proofread because of not clear sentences in the whole text. Unfortunately, without the proofreading, it is not clear at all. Often the prepositions "a" , "an", "the" lack. Many typos like "cols chain logistic" (line 58)

To sum up, the reviewed paper is definitely interesting, the research problem is interesting and up-to-date. The strength of this study is the method - well-described and not popular, so this study definitely can fill some knowledge and research gaps. The results are well prepared. But still it contains the parts which need to be improved, and I advise revising it once again.

Author Response

see attached,please.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem statement is well defined and the subject is aligned to Sustainability. Introduction and Literature Review are straightforward for me. The contribution of this manuscript would be showing trade-offs between delivery cost and emission. The authors can improve mathematical notations and overall discussions including English. Detailed comments follow:

In Figure 1, texts in the chart are difficult for me to read. It can be improved. In 2.2 Research Consideration, you mentioned the multiple-distribution centers, but the computational example has only one distribution center. Please update this section accordingly or address it as one of future studies. I can see both “TS” and “Tabu Search” in the manuscript. Please use one. The second paragraph in Section 2.4 does not deliver the point clearly. For example, “Generation operator” needs to be clarified. Table 1, the mathematical notations should be improved. For example, “particularly, [l_i, l_i]”. the same “l_i” was repeated. Another example, “i” should be better than “I” in F_i. In (1), what is your rationale to have the time windows penalty at the denominator of the objective function? I seems the unit is the same as “cost”? It would be nice if you can clarify. Mathematical notations in Section 3 need to be improved (not easy to read). Section 4.1 and 4.2 do not deliver the point well. Hardly understand what is going on. Maybe you can combine 4.1 and 4.2? Especially, line 342 and 343 talk about the heuristic factors again. What is “r residential areas” in Section 5 Case Study? Section 6.2 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis would be very helpful for readers to understand the trade-offs between cost and sustainability. Section 6.3 talks about Genetic Algorithm. I do not understand why you suddenly jump into the convergence comparison between two Genetic Algorithms. In table 7, what is “Search success rate%”? When you use different algorithms what are the convergence criteria? It is not easy to compare between two meta-heuristic algorithms. For example, you mentioned about a “standard” Genetic Algorithm, but there are many ways to design Genetic operators and their performance can vary. Line 547, “affectivity” can be “effectiveness”?

Author Response

see attached, please. thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to thank the Authors for making many amendments in the text of the paper. Now it is much more clear and consistent. Especially the unification of terms was necessary to improve the quality of the paper. Thank you also for broad comments to my review.

 

 

Still, minor language errors occur - for example, articles in lines 436, 686, 706 and probably more; hyphen for "sub criteria" in the whole text, commas - line 536. Check the punctuation. Other minor errors like "U.K." instead of "UK", in the References line 776 "Techical"
However, please revise once again the whole text - proofread it (there are some special software items for it) or ask a native speaker to do it.

 

Nevertheless, I think the paper is almost ready to be published.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Many thanks for your suggestions to improve the quality of this MS. According to your comments, I have carefully read this MS more than five times. And luckily, Vice Professor Hongying Li, in English Department, School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang Ocean University, helps me polish this MS. I think it is more attractive for reading now. In regards of the problem of punctuation, we have changed quite a lot in the MS. You can find the trace than we have changed in the revised MS. With best regards, Chen Jing

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

This research aims to propose a quite interesting method using tabu search mixed ant algorithm for solving VRP. However, I believe the following comments should be resolved to improve the overall quality of this paper.

In Introduction section, the paragraphs mentioning the previous study are needed to be much more summarized by focusing only on their limitations and the differences compared to this research, since there is another section, Literature Review, that discusses their details.

I feel section 4 is the main part of this research. However, the details are quite week and difficult to understand. The authors need to describe the details on how to apply tabu and GA to solve the suggested problem. Much more details should be in section 4.

Moreover, I cannot find the contents on tabu search mixed ant algorithm in section 4.

In experiments, the solutions should be compared with the well-known VRP methods OR(AND) the optimal solutions, and their computation times also should be compared.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Many thanks for your valuable suggestions. please see the attachment. 

All the best, 

Chenjing

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a novel VRP model for cold chain logistics optimization of fresh food. The model takes into account of the cost related to the degree of freshness and carbon emissions. In addition, an improved genetic algorithm combining with a Tabu search is developed in this paper in order to solve the NP-hard problem.

The paper talks about a very interesting problem that deserve a deep investigation. Even if the problem formulated lacks of a significant novelty, the inclusion of different cost components and development of of the solution method may justify its publication. In general, the paper is well structured and the information given in each section is clear.

Nevertheless, the paper needs to be revised before it can be considered for publication.

1, The title needs to be revised. The current one is a bit too long and it is not good to tell every story in the title, so I suggest the title may be revised by focusing the model.

2, The paper needs to be carefully proofread in order to keep the consistency and eliminate several improper use of words and language mistakes.

3, It is no need to use the capital letters of Carbon Dioxide, and i suggest it is better to just use CO2.

4, Line 26, it is confused "actual illustrative", and i suggest to change it to "real".

5, Line 40, cold chain is ok and eliminate "-".

6, The paper's structure needs to be revised. In the first part, a lot of literature in the relevant fields has already been given, and line 171-174 should be placed at the end of introduction. Instead of "literature review" used as the title of section 2, I think this section provides more theoretical background for the modeling, so the authors may re-think about the title of this section.

7, From section 2, the equations need to be numbered from the beginning. Besides, the parameters used in the text should be the same as they given in the formula.

8, Instead of giving the parameters in the text, they need to be defined afterwards the formula, that will be much easier to read.

9, Line 122, what is the meaning of "p"?

10, Line 124-125, what is the difference between "FC" and "LPH".

11, Line 136-137, the sentence needs to be re-organized and the current one is not clear.

12, Line 141-142, the reference style should be consistent.

13, Line 160-161, the use of abbreviation should be consistent, i.e., VRP.

14, Figure 1 is not referred in the text and there a lack of the arrow between VRP problem and fuel consumption... in the second part of the figure.

15, Line 198, what is the meaning of "leading time", and change "customers demand" to "customer demand", and there several similar mistakes need to be revised throughout the paper.

16, Table 1, the parameters and variables need to be defined individually, and so for the rest part of the paper.

17, Re-format the formulas in this section in order to keep the consistency of their font size. Besides, the formulas should be numbered.

18, Section 4 needs to be restructured. In 4.1, the key improvement, advantage as well as the theoretical basis should be first given. After that, the algorithmic procedures should be introduced, preferably summarized in a table.

19, The references of the relevant data in the case study should be introduced and given.

20, The limitation and future research should be thoroughly discussed in the conclusion.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Many thanks for your valuable suggestions. please see the attachment.

With best regards,

Chen jing

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written and organised. I believe that the contributions are worth publishing. However, I have the following concerns.

Major issues:

- I find the title misleading since the proposed solution approach is based on a genetic algorithm combined with tabu search.

- In section 6.1, is the parameter testing performed using all possible combinations of these parameter values? Otherwise, if only one set of values is fixed for each of the selected population sizes, then I would argue that the strategy is not sufficient to make any conclusions as there might be dependencies between the parameters. I can suggest using a second layer tuning library such as irace http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/irace/

- The tabu list length is not included among the parameters, can it grow infinitely?

- I am not sure how much the genetic operators contribute to the optimisation here. Perhaps the tabu search and the use of a population of solutions instead of one solution would be enough? In general, more argumentation to justify the choice of the components of the solution approach should be included.

Minor issues:

- The runtimes of the approach are not reported. I am not sure how important this would be as I cannot find any information about the frequency of using the approach to generate a routing plan --this will depend on the frequency of the demand. If it is a mid- or long-term decision, then it is fine to have a slow heuristic.

- I suggest few iterations of proofreading to improve the linguistic quality of the paper.

- I found it a bit difficult to understand the heuristic approach in sub-section 4.1. Perhaps this can be better structured in a pseudocode or a flowchart.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Many thanks for your valuable suggestions. please see the attachment. 

All the best, 

Chenjing

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors successfully addressed most of my concerns, and I feel it becomes much more easy to follow.

However, there still exist some minors to be revised.

Some reference formats should be fixed such as #14 and #22 in which the year appears twice. Please re-check the formats for all references. Although the details of ant algorithm appears in this revised version, it is lack of descriptions on how the algorithm works (collaborates) with other things. More description are required in Section 4.2.1 and Fig 2.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have provided a revision on their manuscript and some of my  previous comments were addressed. The paper presents a new VRP model in cold chain logistics considering CO2 emission and freshness of the food. Also, an improved algorithm is proposed. 

Nevertheless, the paper is not very well written and the contributions seem not very good and not well justified.

I have some major concerns about the presentation of the research.

1, Change "CO2" to "CO₂" and that is what I mean in previous comments.

2, The paper needs to go through a rigorous language editing and the current version has so many problems and improper use of worlds, too long sentences. And the words without any logical connection:

E.g. Line 23-27, 

Line 35-36, there is no logical connection and needs reference to support the comment.

Line 40-43, the sentence needs to be revised and the logical connection need to be enhanced.

Line 64-66, Line 507, "science".... and there are some many mistakes like this throughout the paper. It is much better that the paper can be edited by native English speakers. 

3,  Line 17, I cannot see the abbreviation VRP-LFC is derived from the sentence.

4, Line 20, the abbreviation AIGATA is improper and should not be used.

5, For the introduction paper, the logic needs to be justified and references are required to support the comments, e.g. line 35-43.

6, The reason why the research should be conducted is not well justified and the significance of the research is not well elaborated. Line 55-63.

7, The literature review is not clearly and well organized. The authors didn't manage to give an elaboration on why those sections and keywords are reviewed in the paper, line 77-79.  

8, Most importantly, as the literature review is organized into several sections with the separate focus on the different keywords. It is hardly to find some most relevant research papers related to topic of this paper, some are given in THE INTRODUCTION. Due to this, it is very difficulty to see a clear literature gap and the contribution of the research.

9, The structure of the paper should be put in INTRODUCTION but not in LITERATURE REVIEW. This has been pointed out in my previous comments, Line 155-159.

10, In figure 1, what is the meaning of "Parameter optimization"? How to optimize PARAMETERS that is predetermined as the model input.

11, Line 183, still I don't know the meaning of "Leading time" as I pointed out in the previous comments.

12, Why the some parameters and variables are put in one table and the others are put in another table? The readers have to jump from different pages to follow what is defined in the model.

13, As can be seen, most of the model components in this section are cited from other works. In is much better that the model is first defined and then the introduction of the respective components are given so that the model development can be better followed.

14, As the paper talks about VRP, why this most important keyword is included. The current keywords are too general.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors responded to most of my previous comments and I believe that the manuscript was improved. I still have two concerns about the paper:

Ants vs Genetic algorithm: I find it confusing that both terminologies are used to refer to the same approach (sometimes it is called improved GA). There is a difference between the two approaches and perhaps the proposed algorithm is based more on ACO than GA. Anyhow, I highly recommend sticking to one terminology or clarifying further how the proposed algorithm is linked to GA and ACO to avoid any confusions from the reader side. Parameter values: it is not necessary to use a separate framework to tune the parameters (irace was just a recommendation), but there is a lack of information in subsection 6.1. I think the authors should at least mention how the parameter values and the combinations of parameter values in table 6 were determined.