Differential Game Model of Shared Manufacturing Supply Chain Considering Low-Carbon Emission Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present study offers a three-echelon model of a low-carbon supply chain, from product emission reduction and demand to the control cost of each supply chain participant. The authors have done an egregious job. 

The authors proposed an interesting differential game model of a three-tiered echelon supply chain regarding low-carbon emission reduction for which they provided the detailed proof as an analytical solution. Finally, they found the optimal configuration, by comparing the corresponding optimal decision problem for each player: for the case of a decentralized decision making process, for the centralized one, and for a two-way cost-sharing contract. 

The article is well organized; model assumptions are fair; the logic of the demonstration is clearly expressed. 

I would only recommend some minor adjustments to improve the quality of such an excellent work.

First of all, the readability of Fig. 1 can be improved by scaling horizontally the six top boxes, and letting the corresponding text to flow freely inside them. Moreover, if the “Shared manufacturing platform” pertains to the all-encompassing cloud pictogram, it should not be enclosed in a box. If anything, the cloud fill color could be red to highlight the association with the corresponding player.

I would also suggest somehow enhancing the differentiation among the three echelon’s components of the supply chain. The colors used in the figure carry meanings? If not, it is preferable to choose basic black/white and to avoid confounding colors palette. However, colors might be used conveniently to provide supplementary information (e.g., in this case colors can be used to mark the three components according to Fig. 1, to be more consistent). Of course, an explicative legend must be supplied as well as an extensive caption.

In a similar way, clarity of figure 3 must be improved. The provided legend falls short to be self-explanatory (how instead it should). A  more deepened caption will help.

Same observations can be made for figures 4,5,6,7,8,9,14, and 15.

Surface in figure 10  has been depicted  as a wireframe, differently (and apparently without any particular purpose) those in figures 11,12,13 are shaded. Please, choose a unique visualization style and use it consistently. 

Author Response

We thank the referee very much for the comments and suggestions. They are very helpful for us to revise and improve the paper. The paper has been carefully revised according to the referee’s advice.  

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments, (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 This study develops a three-echelon differential game model of a low-carbon supply chain that is led by a shared manufacturing platform operator.  The optimum decision-making challenges of supply chain participants are investigated using both decentralized and centralized decision-making.  Matlab numerical simulations are utilized to validate the results. I think the authors have written an interesting paper, dealing with an important topic. The mathematical formulation of this paper is sound. I have, however, a few comments and suggestions for them:

-The abstract should be a little changed. The abstract should state the major points of your research briefly and explain why your work is important, your purpose, what you learned, and what you concluded.

-The introductory section must appropriately highlight the motivations and objectives of this research.

-In the literature review, it is suggested to add the latest frontiers of literature and analyze their main contributions as well as their value and usefulness for this study. The authors should refer to the following references but no limit to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106765; https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00258-y

-The research gaps are not identified in the introduction section. I suggest inserting a Table at the end of the Introduction section showing related publications chronologically from the updated literature study. This part would focus on the hierarchy of literature study in brief showing your work’s novelty.

-In the numerical experiment, the data are collected from Zhu and You [36] and Xu et al. [37]. However, a real case study or data collected from the industry would be of interest.

-In my opinion, the paper falls short in terms of discussion and insights into the results. The authors should discuss what the key takeaways here are.

-The managerial implications of this study are missing. It is difficult to figure out the practical importance of this study. What practical implications and insights can this study give to companies?

-A separate sensitivity analysis section is welcome. 

-Conclusions are suitable for gaining new results and initiating further or new research.

-The wording and sentence structures of the paper seem fine. However, some long sentences for eg. on page 3 lines 112-117 should be rewritten.  

 

 

Author Response

We thank the referee very much for the comments and suggestions. They are very helpful for us to revise and improve the paper. The paper has been carefully revised according to the referee’s advice.  

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments, (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank you for the opportunity to evaluate your manuscript. 

The authors solve the problem of reducing carbon emissions in supply chains. A Differential game model of shared manufacturing supply chain considering low-carbon emission reduction is proposed. Numerical examples of the proposed methodology are presented.

I have some suggestions for improving the paper.

 

1. The relevance of the research is poorly shown in «Introduction» section. Insufficient statistical data to show the need for research.

2. Authors should explain to readers what they mean by manufacturing platform.

3. Please explain the purpose of the Figure 1. Where are the connections between the elements in the figures? What is the connection of Figure 1 with the purpose of the study - reducing carbon emissions?

4. In the "Introduction " (Lines 40-104) compiles a number of references of works undertaken by others without making any significant analysis. Authors should point out the pros and cons of those studies and why those researches need to improve.

5. Provide references to the literature to prove the statements (Lines 105-107).

6. In section “2.1. Problem description" is missing a description of the problem. This section provides a brief description of the proposed model. Please clearly state the problem and describe the methodology for solving the problem.

7. In section 2.2, the description of all model variables is missing. This makes understanding difficult. You must specify all designations in the model and units of measure.

8. Similar remark on section 3.

9. In the initial data of the numerical example (Section 4) do not present the units of the input parameters.

10. The discussion is missing. I suggest adding a comparison of the obtained results with the available literature in the discussion section.

11. How the results can be use in practice authors should suggest it.

 All Best

Author Response

We thank the referee very much for the comments and suggestions. They are very helpful for us to revise and improve the paper. The paper has been carefully revised according to the referee’s advice.  

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments, (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised their manuscript according to the Reviewer's comments. The manuscript can now be accepted for publication in its present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been revised. The authors considered suggestions and made the appropriate changes in the article. This improved the quality of the article. The manuscript can be published in the Sustainbility.

 

All best