Military Food Supply Chain during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The originality and the significance of the research paper should be highlighted in the abstract.
The justification of the case needs to be moved to the methodology part, instead more comprehensive analyse of lit review needs to be done in this section.
please consider these papers in your manuscript:

A Robust Optimization Approach for Sustainable humanitarian supply chain management of blood products
Modeling resilient supplier selection criteria in desalination supply chain based on fuzzy DEMATEL and ISM
Maturity evaluation of supply chain procedures by combining SCOR and PST models
Impact of coercive and non-coercive environmental supply chain sustainability drivers on supply chain performance: mediation role of monitoring and collaboration
Green Supply Chain Management Business Strategy Selection Using Analytical Network Process
Mathematical Modeling of Sustainable Supply Chain Networks under Uncertainty and Solving It Using Metaheuristic Algorithms

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

• The introduction lacked a clear background to what the military is doing.
• It also lacked information on what the problem is. Why is it critical to do this research?
• Further, your research questions lacked clarity. For instance, your RQ1. Reads “What are the essence, role and specificity of the military food supply chain?” This is unclear and does not communicate its relevance. What will change if this research question is answered? I’m left with several “so what questions in my mind regarding this research question.
• The same applies to your RQ2. It also reads “How are the supply chain processes in the military unit?”. It is also not clear. What exactly do the authors want to do with this research question? The same applies to your RQ3 and RQ4. They do not clearly portray what the study is about.
• The introduction also lacked an upfront statement of the contributions of the study.

Literature review

• Kindly provide a more thorough review of the literature.

Materials and methods

• The authors are advised to take another look at this section and ensure that the sample unit or the study unit and procedure are described vividly.

Results.

• It is strange to see your case description and analysis sub-sections under your results section. Is that not most appropriate for the methods and materials section??.

Discussions

• The discussion section lacked theoretical implications as well as implications for policy makers and or government.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript will benefit from language editing.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf