Robust Counterpart Models for Fresh Agricultural Product Routing Planning Considering Carbon Emissions and Uncertainty
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This draft is well written and interesting. However, I have several suggestions to the authors to improve the quality of this article.
(1) The limitations of the study are usually in the last Section.
(2) Subsection 2.1, in addition to the illustration of assumptions, the revelant references are necessary.
(3) The Table format need to be improved.
(4) Figures are also need to modified. Especially, Figure 7 seems to be very unprofessional.
(5) Conclusion section is too general. Authors also need to provide some insights and findings from the case study and simultions.
(6) Furture research directions are also necessary
(7) The authors need to double check the misstype errors, Such as
1) "Section 56 concludes this paper with projections for possible future research."
2) "(4-8)"--constraints (4)-(8)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript constructs the robust model for agricultural product transportation scheduling problem from the perspective of carbon neutral. However, there are some problems needed to be modified as stated below:
Q1: The title called “Robust model for agricultural product transportation scheduling problem from the perspective of carbon neutral” is not matched with the main content. This paper emphasized the location and transportation rather than transportation scheduling problem.
Q2: The Abstract is not matched with the title. Although the title mentions the carbon neutral and agricultural product, the results and conclusions of abstract does confirm these points. Moreover, the keywords do not contain carbon neutral.
Q3: Section 2 considered the production, transportation and distribution system of agricultural products, which includes multiple distribution centers, multiple sales centers and transportation vehicles connecting enterprises. However, Figure 1 describes the production site, transit site, and demand site. Besides, small circles in Figure 1 have no meaning, which is difficult for readers to understand.
Q4: You should scrutiny the symbols of the part of variables definition. The normative, accuracy, and organization are indispensable for symbol descriptions.
Q5: In section 3.1, the variable x is 0-1 variable. Therefore, the model is a mixed integer linear programming model rather than a linear programming model in the precise sense.
Q6: The most important point is that the carbon neutral is not reflected in the model. There are essential differences between carbon emission limits and carbon neutral. Moreover, the formulation citing other literatures should be pointed out and demonstrated in detail.
Q7: In section 3.1, constraint (5) includes constraint (6). Therefore, constraint (6) is meaningless. The correctness of the whole model needs to be checked carefully.
Q8: In section 4.2, the algorithm needs to be introduced in detail. It is difficult for me to understand the whole process of the algorithm and find the innovation points of your algorithm. From the perspective of algorithm, using the solver Gurobi or Cplex has no essential difference.
Q9: In section 5, the comparison of algorithm efficiency is not the comparison of solver. The accuracy comparison of solver can be found in the official data.
Q10: In section 5, there are no results on carbon emissions and agricultural product. The results cannot confirm the advantage of model in carbon neutral and agricultural product. The problems in section 6 are the same as section 5.
Q11: The English language of whole manuscript needs to be refined and revised. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing in sentence structure so that the goals and results are clear to readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript constructs the robust model for agri-food production location and transportation problem considering carbon emissions. However, there are some problems needed to be modified as stated below:
Q1: The “Agricultural Product Positioning” of title need to be amended, which may cause ambiguity for readers. The Abstract is not matched with the title. Although the title mentions the carbon emissions, the results of abstract does not confirm these points. Moreover, the keywords do not contain carbon emissions.
Q2: The symbols of variables definition still need to be scrutinized carefully. The normative, accuracy, and organization are indispensable for symbol descriptions.
Q3: Although the constraint of model is amended, the decision variables of x and y are not sufficient to reflect the production location and transportation problem. The related model still needs to be explored and investigated. The correctness of the whole model needs to be checked carefully.
Q4: The algorithm needs to be introduced in detail. It is difficult for me to understand the whole process of the algorithm and find the innovation of your algorithm.
Q5: The advantage of MILP, IRC, and ERC need to be illustrated according to experimental results in section 6.1. The title of Figure 5 should point out the concrete parameter and the meaning of triangle in Figure 7 should be illustrated.
Q6: The English language of whole manuscript needs to be refined and revised. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing in sentence structure so that the goals and results are clear to readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have clarified all my concern points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript constructs the robust model for agricultural production routing planning considering problem considering carbon emissions and uncertainty. However, there are some problems needed to be modified as stated below:
Q1: The symbols of variables definition in Section 3.3 still need to be scrutinized carefully. For example, “I: The set of indication parameter i” and “J: The set of indication parameter j”. The exact meaning of symbol should be illustrated. It’s difficult for readers to understand the formulation.
Q2: There are errors in the constraint (3), (4) and (5) of Section 4, which cannot constrain the decision variables. The related model still needs to be explored and investigated.
Q3: More importantly, there is a lack of constraint on arrival time in the formulation. The correctness of the whole model needs to be checked carefully.
Q4: The algorithm needs to be introduced in detail, especially on the MP and SP of benders decomposition algorithm. It is difficult for me to understand the whole process of the algorithm. Moreover, the CPLEX solver is not used in benders decomposition algorithm, but you mentioned that CPLEX (12.6) is called to solve MILP, ERC, and IRC models.
Q5: The English language of whole manuscript needs to be refined and revised. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing in sentence structure so that the goals and results are clear to readers. For example, “First, reduce waste during storage, and use refrigeration equipment to delay the aging and decay of fresh agricultural products and reduce the decay.” and “Recently years, the industry of fresh agricultural products has become an important field of greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have shown that agricultural products will generate a large amount of greenhouse gases during transportation, which has a great negative impact on the environment.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
