Conceptual Framework for Evaluating E-Commerce Deliveries Using Agent-Based Modelling and Sensitivity Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is characterized by an extremely good approach in the introductory part. The description of the problem is complete. Undeniably, the authors are very familiar with the logistical problem of Ecommerce.

In the following, for valid reasons, the viewpoints arising from the results are narrowed. Realistically, the manuscript is a small space for the researched multidimensional problem. For the selected variables, sensitivity was proven, which was the goal of the manuscript.

However, one unknown remains. The authors declare the use of "Anylogic(R)" computer model. OK.

In the manuscript, it is stated that the clients are "randomly allocated". It is clear that routes, trucks, etc... all the deterministic parameters are predefined.

It remains unknown (or your reviewer did not understand well) the nature of the orders in terms of the randomness of the timing of the orders (due to the obligatory occurrence of peak periods) and the randomness of the character of the order. One gets the impression that this important logistic characteristic is deterministic (like 1500 kg or 10m3). I think that any random feature in terms of non-stationary order frequencies would significantly affect the sensitivity analysis. I ask the authors to possibly supplement the manuscript. Clients are randomly distributed in space - OK. Whether customer orders are randomly distributed in time or not. If they are, complete the work with this parameter - density and type of distribution. If not, evaluate the impact of random order terms on the sensitivity analysis.

Author Response

We appreciate all the reviewer's comments and about the last comment we would like to clarify that the order does have randomness regarding the day of the week it is delivered, size, weight. As these parameters entered the sensitivity analysis we had not paid attention to a better explanation. We used the probabilistic values provided by the carrier. We added a sentence to try to clarify this issue (line 203)

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased to read the content of the article. The topic is interesting and up-to-date, albeit not new. The article is well prepared in terms of content and editing. Although I have some suggestions here they are: Title - is clearly worded, it is unambiguous.

Abstract - the structure is correct; the purpose of the research is defined.

Introduction - proposes to also present the purpose of the research here and clearly explain why such research is important. He also proposes to pose research questions. How would it be good to present the thought algorithm (individual stages of the research process).

Methodology - Is sufficiently described, but one could add a rationale for the choice of research methods. Discussion - is enough, the argument is good.

Conclusions - The authors did not indicate the limitations of the research and what the theoretical and what the empirical achievements of the research are.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.  The proposal of stucture to evaluate e-commerce urban freight using Agent-based 9 modeling (ABM) and simulation and Design of Experiments is sufficient.

The paper's argument are built on an appropriate base of theory and the research framework and methodology is well written.  There are many details about research methodology.  

Results and discussion are well presented and they contain contributions to the theory.

The paper identifies implications for science and practice. The last section identifies the limitations of the research and provides suggestions for future research.

The abstract is not clear. What is the research problem and main goal of the paper?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

1. First sentence has two and.  It is to better to rewrite the sentence.

2. Abbreviation of Delivery Lockers is given in line 46. Similarly Design of Experiment has been abbreviated in line 10. They are repeated in many sentences in the text. Example: Line 55, 56, 71, 75, 103, 455, 507 and 522.

3. UF is not elaborated in line 74.

4. Line 122 can start with line 121.

5. In line 474,   The sentence started with This is explained given...... can be rewritten.

6. The outcomes of the graphs shown in Appendix A have not been mentioned in the discussion and conclusion sections. It is better to address shortly the outcomes of the ANOVA and Appendix A in these two sections.

7. Finally the findings of the research could be more focused precisely.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf