Pricing Decision for a Closed-Loop Supply Chain with Technology Licensing under Collection and Remanufacturing Cost Disruptions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript analysed the centralised and decentralised closed loop supply chain of the OEMs, constructing game theory models against the disruption risks (e.g. collection and remanufacturing cost disruptions), with a view to develop optimal pricing strategies for the supply chain members.

I agree that the research addresses a current topic (Closed-loop supply chains) and is relevant to MDPI Sustainability journal's aim and scope.

On the other hand, it is recommended that the following points are addressed by the authors:

• A revision with a view to include the contributions and implications of the research would increase the impact of the Abstract.
• The authors are recommended to articulate more clearly, the research gap they are addressing in the Introduction section. It is advisable to include specific critical evaluation of the extant, similar CLSC research and highlight further their shorthcomings, which will underpin the contributions of the research.
• Inclusion of a table in the Literature Review section, would improve this section (could be provided in Section 2.2 or as an additional section), outlining and categorising the existing works reviewed, and evidencing further the research gap that the authors are addressing. A critical analysis column in this table can further highlight the significance of this study against the related works, and provide theoretical anchoring to the manuscript.
• The methods and design adopted is advised to be adequately described. The authors are recommended to step back, and prior to introduction of their model, outline and justify at a higher level, the steps they have taken to complete their research (Literature Review, Model Construction, Numerical Demonstration etc.). A materials and methods section after section 2 is advised to be implemented, with a view to clarify these aspects.
• The proofs of the corollaries may be provided in the form of an Appendix, with a view to improve the flow of the manuscript.
• A discussion section is recommended to be added, including a review of the findings and implications of the research against extant and/or similar works. This will again, increase the impact of the paper, and will anchor the paper into the existing works. Managerial implications of the research are also proposed to be discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper “Pricing decision for a closed-loop supply chain with technology licensing under collection and remanufacturing cost disruptions” aims to explore a closed-loop supply chain system wherein original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) license the third-party remanufacturer to bear the remanufacturing activities and investigate pricing decisions while considering collection and remanufacturing cost disruptions. As for the research framework, my suggestion is to clarify how the literature was reviewed to justify the research framework according to relevant theories in the body of literature. In fact, the authors should improve the theoretical justification of the study. Which is/are the theory/ies adopted to justify the study. I suggest to provide theoretical justification leveraging on the information processing theory or other relevant theory in the field of sustainability management. This justification could guarantee that the authors have not overlooked some relevant papers in the analysis of the theoretical background. In fact, in this present version this section neglects some valuable recent contributions in the body of knowledge, and therefore the authors should work more to update the literature review. Furthermore, I suggest to integrate recent literature reviews on closed-loop supply chain, and integrate in the future research directions the enabling role of blockchain technology (see DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4994, 10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103508, DOI 10.1109/EMR.2019.2928264) considering recent studies in the field of sustainability. In addition, I suggest to use also them as perspective of analysis in discussing the future research directions and improve the discussion of findings. With regard to the context of investigation, could it affect the results? Why? Additional information on how the evaluation is generated should be included to justify the significance of the results. Moreover, the author/s should describe more in details if and how their application converge or diverge from other approaches? Furthermore, the authors should enhance the practical implications for managers. Finally, proofreading in different sections is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have now addressed the reviewer comments, significantly improving their manuscript. Congratulations for this interesting piece of work.