The Design of Sustainable City Multi-Floor Manufacturing Processes Under Uncertainty in Supply Chains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper much enhanced its quality for presentation. But it is still missing several logical missing links from the sentence to sentence, from the paragraph to another, from chapter to next, etc. Especially, the paper is just based on the abstract, vague mega-city, no real world! Therefore, there is very little implications in reality. The authors may explain more for "realistic implications and suggestions with some example cities in conclusion.

Author Response

We wish to thank you very much for your accurate comments and suggestions. The practical application of Citi MF is indeed crucial and determines its further development.

A relevant sentence has been included in the Introduction section  (32-35). Other sentences or paragraphs have been also added to improve the narrative logic of the entire article and make it easier for the reader to understand the research presented at the end of chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been well corrected and in my opinion, the current version is sufficient for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for all the previous comments that helped us improve the article.
Please be advised that the latest version of the article is English language corrected (grammar, spelling, punctuation and style correctness) by MPDI editors.

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 paper analyzes the traffic planning for sustainable supply chain management in the megapolis. It seems interesting paper. But it has "serious logical missing links" in that it does not show the problems of MFM and thus its solutions are not clear. For example, it concludes with " In addition, it is important to reduce production waste and its nomenclature (Line 455)" -> Everybody can say this because it is just out of common sense! What we want from the paper should be more precise, accurate, appropriate and unique suggestions, not common sense-type of general comments! Worse over, it does not have any specific information on the field. It is not field-oriented research. We need more field-oriented, performance-oriented governance on the conclusion. It just "explains" the mathematical trial as a kind of text chapter
• Abstract is not just a summary of the introduction and/or conclusion, it should show the "unique" contributions of the research. The paper did not show this! Abstract should include "numerical results" and its precise implications and suggestions, instead of very vague common-sense type of decorative sentences such as "---the number of floors of the manufacturing buildings are proposed. " Explain the specific, precise accurate implications and suggestions, directly from the numerical results.
• There are some problems in English. For example, the first sentence of the paper takes 5 lines! (from lines 24-28). It is terrible! Make all sentences short and clear! There are five subjects, but these subjects in the first sentence do not match each other (The acceleration---,the increase in the share, ---intensive urban traffic,, --- increasing the environmental flexibility, --- etc.). I do not want to point out all mistakes in English grammar in the paper. Instead, I strongly recommend "the Certificate of Professional English Proof Reading Services by MDPI".
• Since "Multi-Floor Manufacturing (MFM)" is not a common word, the authors must explain the definition and conceptual characters in its first use in line 28
• There is no chapter of "Literature Review". Without the comparative analysis of the previous papers, the models and methodological approach of the authors are not convincible or reliable at all. Make a separate chapter for the background of the model and methodologies.
• All equations are not clear to be used. For example, there are no clear explanations on the strategic (or independent) variables as well as the output variable. Why should the authors use "C" weight variable, instead of traffic volume and/or passengers? Explain the selection of the variables more in details. All equations have the same problems. The authors just explained the variables, not the causal relationship at all

Reviewer 2 Report

The article „Sustainable processes design of City Multi-Floor Manufacturing under uncertainty of supply chains“ presents an approach for ITS-oriented freight traffic planning and management for city MFM. However, the article seems to miss a systematic review of recent literature, a storyline as well as a clear presentation of the research findings. After having read it, I am unclear what its added value should be. Therefore, sincerely recommend the authors to rewrite it.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting and up to date. It presents the mathematical model for the city MFM clusters under uncertainty of supply chains by using freight elevator transportin MFM builing. However, while reading it, I had some doubts:

1According to the title of the article, its main topics are sustainable processes, city multi-floor manufacturing, sustainable and uncertainty of supply chains. I believe that the topic of post-production and other waste should be the topic of further research.

2. The formulas used represent the theoretical approach. Do the authors have any reason to believe that the proposed mathematical model will find practical application?

3. In Materials and Methods, the authors write about SSC, but there is no reference to this thread in the justification. An introduction is a general approach to a topic that provides motivations for the research undertaken. The introduction should also refer to the mainstream research on vertical transport (freight elevator in MFM building).

4. Line 83: SSSC or SSC?

5. Record: 85-86: "the critical aspects that determine the design of the SSC for the city 86 MFM cluster", what are the aspects?

6. Conclusions include study limitations and further research?

7. References have editorial errors, eg. different way of recording the year of publication.

8. Record: 241-243 - wrong numbers of formulas were marked

9. Patterns: 18-23 are not readable, I suggest increasing the line distance between them.

10. Does the developed model really take into account only the uncertainty conditions in the supply chain or is it universal and also applicable under certain supply conditions?

11. I propose to add the purpose of the article in the abstract.