A Sustainable Supply Chain Network Model Considering Carbon Neutrality and Personalization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary

This paper proposed a sustainable customized supply chain network (SSCN-cp) model for manufacturing electric vehicles by focusing on green parts and personalization.  SSCN-cp is represented as a mathematical formulation and implemented using the genetic algorithm.  In addition, the evaluation values of customized and green parts are calculated and then applied to the genetic algorithm. In the numerical experiment, hypergeometric distribution is used to calculate the evaluation values between the range of production quantities and the customized amount，and the comparison is made.

General comments

Supply chain sustainability is an increasingly important field of supply chain management. From the current momentum, this field will obtain more investment in the future. As the Covid-19 pandemic continues, supply chain sustainability is imperative, especially because carbon neutrality in response to climate change acts as a major entry barrier for corporate management. Further, as an increasing number of consumers demand individual creativity and customized products, the demand for changes in the corporate management environments is on the rise. This direction is interesting and novel. The authors have developed an effective evaluation system, realized competitiveness and social responsibility, and optimized the SSCN-cp model, which is very useful in theory and practice. Thus, from that perspective the paper certainly deserves publication in Sustainability.

    However, the introduction of the model in section 2 is not sufficient, and the contribution description of the final article is not comprehensive and clear enough. The quality of English needs improving. Further, the recent publications should be cited: S.J. Qu, Y.M. Li, Y. Ji, The mixed integer robust maximum expert consensus models for large-scale GDM under uncertainty circumstances, Applied Soft Computing Journal 107, 107369, (2021).  Y. Ji, H.H. Li, H.J. Zhang, Risk-averse two-stage stochastic minimum cost consensus models with asymmetric adjustment cost, Group Decision and Negotiation,  (2021), DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09752-z

It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows.

Specific and editorial comments

1. 2, line 24: please add comma “,” after “technology”.
2. 2, line 35: please remove one “enhance”.
3. 2, line 36: please change “social economic” to “social-economic”.
4. 2, line 42: please change “consumers” to “consumers’”.
5. 2, line 42: please change all “hyperpersonalization” (here and the rest places appeared in the context) to “hyper-personalization” or “hyper personalization”.
6. 3, line 66: please change “approach” to “approaches”.
7. 3, line 75: please change “carbon-dioxide” to “carbon dioxide”.
8. 4, line 152: please change the second “Equation” to “Equations”, because it was followed by more than one equation (here and the rest places appeared in the context).
9. 4, line 155: please change the “identity” to “identify”.
10. 8, section 4：it is suggested that the " The Implemented Procedure of the GA-based Approach" is presented in a table.
11. 8, section 5: pay attention to the settings of the table and the thickness of the upper and lower borders (tables appearing here and elsewhere).
12. 18, line 440: please change “Figure” to “Figures”, because it was followed by more than one figure (here and the rest places appeared in the context).
13. 20, line 485: please change “determine” to “determining”.
14. 20, line 485: please change “rang” to “range”.

Recommendation

The ideas in the paper merit publication in Sustainability, but the authors should revise the manuscript to address the general and specific issues mentioned above.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, I have attached the revised content and revised paper in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report on “A sustainable supply chain network model considering carbon neutrality and personalization"

I have the following concerns for this manuscript.

1. The authors are already making suggestions in the abstract that is not the proper way to write an abstract. I recommend rewriting the abstract considering major issues and contributions being made in this study. 
2. The authors should change the short form " SSCN-cp " to an easy-to-remember term. 
3. The provided literature is not enough 
4. The authors should make sure that all notations are included in a table at the start of Section 3. 
5. Why GA has been used to get the solution for this problem? There are so many other options available. The authors need to provide an explanation for rising this method and its advantages for this. 
6. What are the major insights from this study? What kind of help does it provide for the managers to decide in these situations?
7. There are many typos and grammatical mistakes in the current version of the manuscript. The authors should consider proofreading before submission.  For example, in line  35 “services must not only enhance enhance” And similarly in the whole manuscript.

Author Response

March 19, 2022

Lyracy Chen

sustainability-1665727

Sustainability

Dear Editor:

I wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “A sustainable supply chain network model considering carbon neutrality and personalization.”

I thank you and the reviewers for the thoughtful suggestions and insights. This manuscript has benefited from such valuable suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The manuscript was reviewed again, and the necessary changes were made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. Responses to all the comments have been prepared and are attached here.

Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript proposes a sustainable customized supply chain network (SSCN-cp) for manufacturing electric vehicles by focusing on green parts and personalisation. In the considered problem, enterprises should determine the amount of production by predicting consumer preferences and quantities to ensure high-efficiency and sustainable production. In addition, enterprises should evaluate the entire network’s performance to determine production and supply chain strategies. The proposed SSCN-cp is formulated as a mathematical model and solved using the genetic algorithm. In addition, the evaluation values of customized and green parts are calculated and then applied to the genetic algorithm. The presentation of the paper is acceptable, the novelty of the idea is appropriate, and I recommend the submitted manuscript should be revised regarding the following major comments:

1. The title of the paper should be justified regarding carbon neutrality and personalization concepts that are two major contributions of this study. These concepts should be clearly defined in the whole paper, supported by the literature, and reflected in the mathematical model development.

1. The literature review section is not presented, which is one of the weakest points of the paper.
2. Clarify your contribution to knowledge and the novelty of the research by the end of introduction section.
3. What are green parts? Justify this concept by the literature, and present clear definition of that.
4. Authors have used personalisation and customization as the same in different parts of the paper. They seem be different in meaning and application. Clarify this hesitation, and use the unique concept all over the paper.
5. The reason of selecting GA as the solution method should be presented. Why this method? It is highly recommend comparing the results, and validating the solutions with other solution methods.
6. Managerial insights regarding the application of the results for organizations/governments/companies should be added.
7. It is highly recommended to elaborate on the future directions of the work.
8. Have your paper proof read by a native English Speaker or a person more familiar with the English language?

Author Response

March 19, 2022

Lyracy Chen

sustainability-1665727

Sustainability

Dear Editor:

I wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “A sustainable supply chain network model considering carbon neutrality and personalization.”

I thank you and the reviewers for the thoughtful suggestions and insights. This manuscript has benefited from such valuable suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The manuscript was reviewed again, and the necessary changes were made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. Responses to all the comments were prepared and are attached here.

Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have cleared all of my concerns. So I think this paper can be accepted now.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did excellent work to improve the manuscript. I accept it. 

Reviewer 3 Report

None.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.