Supply Chain Modelling of the Automobile Multi-Stage Production Considering Circular Economy by Waste Management Using Recycling and Reworking Operations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the paper presented new and interesting findings. However, the paper is not organized and structured in an academic writing manner. The theoretical part is mixed all over the paper and the model formulation.
Abstract: The introduction to the paper is missing, why this topic is important to the automobile industry?
Introduction: No problem statements and objective of this paper, what is the importance of supply chain modelling via circular economy to the automobile industries? Is the problem peculiar to these industries?
Literature Review: This part should cover all theoretical parts of the paper, the current and previous approaches to the subject matter, why we need a new approach, and what are the current problems and lacking. One page of the Literature Review is too short to explain all the theoretical works involved in this paper.
The following recent works can be reviewed and some others published by sustainability. They include:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119055, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.03.075, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01713-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04795-0, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052613, https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCCE149145
Methodology: The overall methodology of the development of the method is missing, no flow or structured steps are explained. (All theoretical parts in methodology should be explained in LR).
The authors use an SQP an evolutionary-based technique in solving the model formulated. However, such techniques have not been discussed anywhere in the paper.
Proposed Model formulation: What are the based for the model assumptions?
Results: The result is promising but required further analysis towards the implementation.
Conclusion: the conclusion part is very interesting. However, the managerial insights/implications are missing in this section.
Major restructuring of the paper is required in order to deliver this paper.
Author Response
Comment 01: Overall, the paper presented new and interesting findings. However, the paper is not organized and structured in an academic writing manner. The theoretical part is mixed all over the paper and the model formulation.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we have organized the structure. Separated the formulation section and there are only mathematical equations there.
Comment 02: Abstract: The introduction to the paper is missing, why this topic is important to the automobile industry?
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. The introduction and the importance of automobile industry has been added in the Abstract. [Please See: Abstract]
Comment 03: Introduction: No problem statements and objective of this paper, what is the importance of supply chain modelling via circular economy to the automobile industries? Is the problem peculiar to these industries?
Response:
Thank you for the valuable input. Currently in the manufacturing sector, reusable plastic material management is critical. Circular economy links the remanufacturing setup for aligning the unfit products in to usable ones. Particularly, in the automotive industry, as its market share and contribution to the global economy is impactful. Supply chain models need to internalize the properties of circular economy. Although, research have Close Loop Supply Chain models that works on feedback from the market in shape of pricing, marketing, supplier selection etc. strategies in the automotive industry. Yet, there is need of a model capable enough to inculcate the parameters of imperfection, rework, outsourcing, and recycling management. Thus, developing such a model, one of its kind, is the objective of this research.
Comment 04: Literature Review: This part should cover all theoretical parts of the paper, the current and previous approaches to the subject matter, why we need a new approach, and what are the current problems and lacking. One page of the Literature Review is too short to explain all the theoretical works involved in this paper.
Response:
Literature has been expanded and improved by adding previous studies such as EOQ models related to remanufacturing, and the urge to produce an adaptive model related to circular economy in the automotive sector.
Comment 05: Methodology: The overall methodology of the development of the method is missing, no flow or structured steps are explained. (All theoretical parts in methodology should be explained in LR).
Response: The Methodology Section Heading has been changed as a “Research Methodology”. A research methodology flow diagram has been added (Figure 01) and explained well to understand the step by step procedure of the work. [Please See: Section 03, Paragraph 01, and Figure 01].
Comment 06: The authors use an SQP an evolutionary-based technique in solving the model formulated. However, such techniques have not been discussed anywhere in the paper.
Response: The technique (SQP) is used to optimize the decisions and minimize the objective of the proposed SCM model. It has been discussed in the last paragraph of the Section 04: Numerical Experiment and Solution Methodology. [Please See: Section 04, Last Paragraph].
Comment 07: Proposed Model formulation: What are the based for the model assumptions?
Results: The result is promising but required further analysis towards the implementation.
Response: Added a paragraph before the Assumptions to understand the reason and base.
Comment 08: Conclusion: the conclusion part is very interesting. However, the managerial insights/implications are missing in this section.
Response: Added managerial insights into the conclusion to understand how these results and analysis are helpful for managers. [Please See: Conclusions Section.
Comment 09: Major restructuring of the paper is required in order to deliver this paper.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. These changes reconstruct the article from Abstract to Conclusion for significant improvement.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review can be found in the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the positive feedback regarding the manuscript. It really encouraged the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1:
In summary, the topic is interesting and falls right in the scope of the journal Sustainability and the paper is well structured. For all that, I have main concerns about the literature, motivation, innovations and conclusions.
Response:
Thank you very much for the valuable input. The introduction and literature sections of the manuscript are updated now. As far motivation for the study is concerned, table 1 represents the statistics of carbon fiber (CF) demand in the automotive industry which is growing extremely on a rapid pace. To the best of knowledge, there is no model available in the literature which deals with the recycling management modeling of CF, encompassing imperfect production for the supply chain in automotive industry. This has been the limelight of the current study.
Comment 2:
The literature review is not extensive nor timely. As far as I know, some authors have already done their work in recycling and remanufacturing optimization, as presented below, I suggest the authors to read those documents in the field of circular economics.
Response:
Thank you very much for the constructive input. Different research material regarding remanufacturing optimization is investigated in supply chain modeling and made part of the manuscript. The manuscripts provided by the reviewer were of definite help, thanks.
Comment 3:
Mathematical models are poorly justified, and more supporting references are required.
Response:
Thank you for the feedback. A paragraph each in the research methodology and modelling construction has been added. Further the conclusion section is also refined in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version has been improved. However, the suggested articles were not cited yet. Kindly cite them because of their relevancy.
Author Response
Thank you for the response. The relevant papers have been cited in the updated version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
My concerns are properly addressed by aushors
Author Response
Thank you for the kind response. Few more articles are included in the literature section to strengthen the section.
