Optimal Ordering Policy for Retailers with Bayesian Information Updating in a Presale System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I carefully read the article I received for the review and I have the following findings:

1. Abstract and keywords

Abstract:

I believe that the abstract should be better structured, following the instructions for authors in the template.  So,

(1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study;

(2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied;

(3) Results: summarize the article's main findings; (

4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

The abstract should be an objective representation of the article and it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

Keywords:

Keywords must be representative of the research. They are essential elements in search engines and it is recommended to be as specific as possible. For example, information and pricing are far too general. I think the specific would be "bayesian information update", for example.

Conclusion_1: 

The abstract needs to be restructured, and the keywords need to reflect the essential elements of the content.

2. Introduction

The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. 

The first part of the introduction is much too extensive and does not contain the necessary essential elements. The authors repeatedly refer to well-known concepts, which do not bring value whether the reader is in or out of it. I consider with fig. 1 has no scientific value for this article. Also, in the introduction we do not find clearly expressed the purpose of the research nor its importance / significance. 

Conclusion_2. 

I recommend restoring the introduction and maintaining the essential elements. I also recommend clearly specifying the purpose of the research and its significance.

In the introduction and abstract, only one reference is made to demand uncertainty, although this concept is used in the subsequent analysis. We consider it necessary to briefly explain the context of uncertainty.

3. Literature review

In the literature review we find a single bibliographic reference indicated regarding the Bayesian approach (ref. No. 18). It is noteworthy that the bibliography is limited to only 23 papers / articles published in the period 1999-2018. We do not find any work / article published in the last 3 years (2019-2020-2021).

Conclusion_3: 

Literature review had to be brought in accordance with the purpose and content of the research presented in the article. 

It is also necessary to complete the bibliography with the latest published articles (2019-2020-2021).

4. Problem description 

We have no comments on this chapter.

5. Numerical Analysis

For confidence in the results in tab 2 and 3 and in the figures, I recommend indicating how they were obtained (eg Source: Calculated by authors using .....)

6. Conclusions

We have no comments on this chapter.

Dear authors, 

I hope that the observations I have made will lead to the improvement of the article.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

The topic of the paper is an interesting one and has merit, there are some issues regarding the paper that must be addressed in order for it to be improved, such as:

• the English of the paper should be improved, spellcheck must be applied. 
• there are situations when you use RMB and you use Yuan. Choose one not both
• In the 4th paragraph of the introduction you use the word forecast. In my opinion, predict fits the issue better
• in the literature review section, you only have 3 references presented in [], as is per the request of the Journal.  Although you reference some articles in a variation of the APA style, there should be done in [].
• The references are on the older side, the oldest reference is of 1999 and the newest is 2018, with the great majority of them between 2000 and 2010. I highly recommend extending the literature review to cover also the years 2018,2019, 2020, 2021. 
• You mentioned in the second paragraph of section 2,: ... scholars who have studied .... , please reference them clearly. The same applies for the last paragraph of section 2. 
• Above figure 2, you mention the concept of homogeneous product, please define the concept for a better understanding of the reader. 
• At proof of theorems 2, 3, 4, you mention appendix starting from F, G and H. Why is that, shouldn't there be the beginning with A. Are there any missing appendix? If so, please provide explanation
• Above theorem 4, you present the conditions of processing the equation for the optimal r. That should be pointed out, in the methodology, or after theorem 4, or in the acknowledgement section. 
• Please extend the conclusions with some practical approaches for sales strategies following the research developed in the paper. 
• In appendix H- Proof of theorem 4, you mention 3 decision variables,  could you please mention them . 

Looking forward to seeing the revised version of this interesting paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The literature review would need to be deepened. The latest literature is missing.
2. It is worth clarifying the purpose of the article.
3. The main hypothesis should be put forward, it would be good if the research hypotheses were clearly defined.
4. For Figure 1, please provide the source.
5. There is no discussion with reference to the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I carefully read the answers to the review. I consider that the conditions are met.

I appreciate your effort to improve the article.

 

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the valuable comments from the anonymous reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

After the analysis of the second version of the paper, the authors have improved the quality of the paper. Please check that there are still several small English mistakes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

There is no discussion that related to the main hypothesis after the research results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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.