Managing a Sustainable and Resilient Perishable Food Supply Chain (PFSC) after an Outbreak
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting and timely research to explore perishable food supply chain during and after Crisis. It follows a rigorous approach and concreate suggestions have been made based on the results. There are some issues need to be addressed:
- For lines 37-38, real life examples can be provided to strengthen the argument;
- Lines 43-67 introduce the simulation performance measures which should move to research methodology to be more appropriate;
- There is no literature review section;
- Table 1 provides the inputs which more background information should be provided, for example, based on a case company?;
- Figure 1 is unclear.
- Finally, results section is too brief which more details are needed.
Author Response
This is an interesting and timely research to explore perishable food supply chain during and after Crisis. It follows a rigorous approach and concreate suggestions have been made based on the results. There are some issues need to be addressed:
Point 1: For lines 37-38, real life examples can be provided to strengthen the argument;
Response 1: Thank you for this comment! In the new manuscript, we have refereed to a report from Deloitte and CCFA (2020) on the retailing situations in China during and after COVID-19 outbreak to strengthen our argument (lines 41-44).
Point 2: Lines 43-67 introduce the simulation performance measures which should move to research methodology to be more appropriate;
Response 2: Thank you for your comment! In the new manuscript, we have moved some of them to the methodology part (lines 169-174). Others are put at the beginning of the literature review part (lines 88-105).
Point 3: There is no literature review section;
Response 3: We very appreciate this comment. A literature review section has been added (lines 86-140) in the new manuscript.
Point 4: Table 1 provides the inputs which more background information should be provided, for example, based on a case company?;
Response 4: Thank you for this comment! The background information has been added (lines 155-161) in the new manuscript.
Point 5: Figure 1 is unclear.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this issue! Figure 1 has been replaced (line 204) in the new manuscript.
Point 6: Finally, results section is too brief which more details are needed.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment! The results section has been enriched (lines 325-345) and a conclusion part has been added (lines 366-374) in the new manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
first of all this manuscript is well written and fits well in the SI topic.
Let me provide several points where I believe the manuscript can have more added value:
- Figure 1: Consider transpositioning of the figure, as figure text is not readable in the current size. Also save this figure in higher resolution, according to requirements of the journal.
- Page 4, Line 138 - I do not see a reason for complete description of all loops. If Figure 1 is in sufficient size, there is no need for identical description below.
- 31 referenced publications, all of them reasonably cited.
From the scientific point of view, your conclusion si that loosely coupled strategy can benefit decision making during and after the crisis, to allow more autonomy along the supply chain to keep it running as normal. However, readers could also be interested in a simple comparison of SC performance before and with more autonomy in case of crisis.
I believe this paper could attract readers as it is very topical.
Thank you, reviewer.
Author Response
Point 1: Figure 1: Consider transpositioning of the figure, as figure text is not readable in the current size. Also save this figure in higher resolution, according to requirements of the journal.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this issue! Figure 1 has been replaced (line 204) in the new manuscript.
Point 2: Page 4, Line 138 - I do not see a reason for complete description of all loops. If Figure 1 is in sufficient size, there is no need for identical description below.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment! We argue this is still necessary, as loops like B4 and B5 have overlaps on variables and some loops like R1 has many variables. It is therefore better to illustrate all the variables involved in each loop.
Point 3: 31 referenced publications, all of them reasonably cited.
Response 3: Thank you! In the new manuscript, we have further added 13 new references to improve our arguments.
Point 4: From the scientific point of view, your conclusion si that loosely coupled strategy can benefit decision making during and after the crisis, to allow more autonomy along the supply chain to keep it running as normal. However, readers could also be interested in a simple comparison of SC performance before and with more autonomy in case of crisis.
Response 4: We really appreciate this suggestion. We have added a post hoc check for the situation before the outbreak (lines 338-345). The results show that there is no dominant feedback loop during this period, meaning that more autonomy cannot benefit the supply chain operations in normal times.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank You so much for invitation to review the paper entitled: „Managing a Sustainable and Resilient Perishable Food Supply Chain (PFSC) during and after the Crisis”
The paper title is quite interesting, well written but needs crucial improvements:
The abstract should be rewritten, there is lack of study novelty description as well as the readers do not know what kind of simulation has been used. The results description should be more detailed to encourage readers for studying the paper. Abstract and whole paper should be written in “passive voice”.
The introduction and literature review are combined in one section and they are quite narrow. You should present Introduction with study motivation and then much more wide Literature review, please consider some of the following sources if possible:
Siddh, M.M., Soni, G., Jain, R., Sharma, M.K. Structural model of perishable food supply chain quality (PFSCQ) to improve sustainable organizational performance (2018) Benchmarking, 25 (7), pp. 2272-2317
Orjuela-Castro, J.A., Diaz Gamez, G.L., Bernal Celemín, M.P. Model for logistics capacity in the perishable food supply chain (2017) Communications in Computer and Information Science, 742, pp. 225-237.
Kot, S. Sustainable supply chain management in small and medium enterprises (2018) Sustainability (Switzerland), 10 (4), art. no. 1143.
Kot, S., Haque, A.U., Kozlovski, E. Strategic SCM's Mediating Effect on the Sustainable Operations: Multinational Perspective (2019) Organizacija, 52 (3), pp. 219-235.
Moreover remember that the Literature review should lead to the hypothesis or scientific questions elaboration.
Considering model assumption, I am afraid that food/cheese supply chains are much more complex than a producer, an LSP, and a retailer, so this simplification can give not good results
Apologise maybe it is my mistake but I cannot find the name of the software you used in simulation process.
Results discussion should be done in relation to previous studies as well
There is no Conclusion section, recommendations are very narrow.
Author Response
Point 1: The abstract should be rewritten, there is lack of study novelty description as well as the readers do not know what kind of simulation has been used. The results description should be more detailed to encourage readers for studying the paper. Abstract and whole paper should be written in “passive voice”.
Response 1: Thank you for the comments! We have re-written the abstract to incorporate your suggestions to make our motivation, method, and results clearer. Meanwhile, we have adjusted some sentence in the whole paper to the proper “voice”.
Point 2: The introduction and literature review are combined in one section and they are quite narrow. You should present Introduction with study motivation and then much more wide Literature review, please consider some of the following sources if possible:
Siddh, M.M., Soni, G., Jain, R., Sharma, M.K. Structural model of perishable food supply chain quality (PFSCQ) to improve sustainable organizational performance (2018) Benchmarking, 25 (7), pp. 2272-2317
Orjuela-Castro, J.A., Diaz Gamez, G.L., Bernal Celemín, M.P. Model for logistics capacity in the perishable food supply chain (2017) Communications in Computer and Information Science, 742, pp. 225-237.
Kot, S. Sustainable supply chain management in small and medium enterprises (2018) Sustainability (Switzerland), 10 (4), art. no. 1143.
Kot, S., Haque, A.U., Kozlovski, E. Strategic SCM's Mediating Effect on the Sustainable Operations: Multinational Perspective (2019) Organizacija, 52 (3), pp. 219-235.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions! We have made a separate literature review part (lines 86-140) and applied all the references you suggested.
Point 3: Moreover remember that the Literature review should lead to the hypothesis or scientific questions elaboration.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment! We have elaborated our research questions at 2.1 and 2.2 (lines 109-140) in the new manuscript.
Point 4: Considering model assumption, I am afraid that food/cheese supply chains are much more complex than a producer, an LSP, and a retailer, so this simplification can give not good results
Response 4: Thank you for this comment! We agree that our three-tier cheese supply chain is simple, but we argue that our simulation has already captured the phenomenon of endogenous demand, therefore can reflect the same problem as in a more complex food supply chain. Although based on a simple model, we believe that our findings still have reasonable contributions to theory as well as practice.
Point 5: Apologise maybe it is my mistake but I cannot find the name of the software you used in simulation process.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this issue! We did not explicitly mention the software in the previous version. Now we make it clear that we use Stella® for our simulation (line 161).
Point 6: Results discussion should be done in relation to previous studies as well
Response 6: Thank you for your comment! Discussions on the relationship with previous studies have been added (lines 325-337) in the new manuscript.
Point 7: There is no Conclusion section, recommendations are very narrow.
Response 7: Thank you for your comments! A conclusion section has been added (lines 366-374) in the new manuscript. Since our findings still need empirical supports from future research, we still think it is wise to keep recommendations narrow. But necessary adjustments have been made in the new manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
My biggest objection is that the objectives are not well specified or clarified in the introduction. From there derive all subsequent ills. Because the method corresponds to the description of the protocols that have been carried out to perform a series of studies, which have been done, but it is not clear for what purpose, beyond merely communicating of some realities or facts.
It is a descriptive report. There is no null hypothesis, and the reason for this work is not well understood. It does it contribute specifically to the advancement of science within its specialty.
Author Response
Point 1: My biggest objection is that the objectives are not well specified or clarified in the introduction. From there derive all subsequent ills. Because the method corresponds to the description of the protocols that have been carried out to perform a series of studies, which have been done, but it is not clear for what purpose, beyond merely communicating of some realities or facts.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments! The introduction part is now narrowed down, so that our research questions are clearer. A separate literature review section has been added (lines 86-140) to further dig into our focus: the value of information (especially the information conveying endogenous demand) and decision-making strategy (tightly coupled vs. loosely coupled). Corresponding changes are also applied to the discussions and conclusion section to compare our results with previous research (lines 325-337), and provide a clear conclusion (lines 366-374).
Point 2: It is a descriptive report. There is no null hypothesis, and the reason for this work is not well understood.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments! We want to first motivate that system dynamics modelling is the most feasible modelling technique for operationalizing and testing our research problems, as we focus on a complex food supply chain (i.e. system) that three tiers interact with each other via physical (i.e. supply and demand) and information flows, with feedbacks and delays. We argue that the null hypothesis, to be interpreted as the starting point of this research, is that value of information must be exploited by decision-making (hence sharing of information and decision-making must be well aligned), and is only effective when “proper” learning loops are in place. And perhaps counter-intuitively, we find that the loops related to information sharing of endogenous demand should not be in place, and decision-making should be loosely coupled. As our research is not a statistical research, there is, literally speaking, no hypothesis. In addition, the reason for this work is now better illustrated in the abstract as well as literature review section.
Point 3: It does it contribute specifically to the advancement of science within its specialty.
Response 3: Thank you!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have carefully addressed all my comments. I am happy with the changes.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors have carefully addressed all my comments. I am happy with the changes.
Response 1: Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors improve the paper significantly,
However the literature review should be still extended and lead to the scientific questions or hypothesis elaboration. then present methodology and results
good luck
Author Response
Point 1: However the literature review should be still extended and lead to the scientific questions or hypothesis elaboration. then present methodology and results.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion! In the new manuscript, we have further enriched our Literature Review section (mainly lines 78-126): we have made clear our two hypotheses, and elaborated them via literature as well as the way how they can be supported in our model. Meanwhile, we have adjusted some contents in Discussions (mainly lines 283-307) so that we make sure our two hypotheses are proved.
Reviewer 4 Report
The work has been greatly improved over the original version. I have found that the observations made in my former review have been taken into account. The necessary bibliographic references and concepts have been introduced to make the objective of the paper well identified.
Although I request that this paper must also be evaluated by someone with a greater specialization in the subject than myself, I understand that the authors have made sufficient beneficial modifications. Upon my criteria at this time it is acceptable to be published in Sustainability.
Author Response
Point 1: The work has been greatly improved over the original version. I have found that the observations made in my former review have been taken into account. The necessary bibliographic references and concepts have been introduced to make the objective of the paper well identified.
Response 1: Thank you!
Point 2: Although I request that this paper must also be evaluated by someone with a greater specialization in the subject than myself, I understand that the authors have made sufficient beneficial modifications. Upon my criteria at this time it is acceptable to be published in Sustainability.
Response 2: Thank you!
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.
