Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While the study appears to have a broad scope, it would benefit from providing more detailed information regarding the methodology and data sources used to develop the model. Furthermore, it may be helpful to clarify the specific criteria utilized to evaluate the total profit, air pollution emissions, satisfaction of citizens, and social risk factors.

 

While the introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, it may be beneficial to condense it and focus more on clearly articulating the research objectives of the study.

 

The conclusion is a crucial component of the research article and should closely tie back to the research questions that guide the investigation. In this study, it may be beneficial to expand upon the findings and discuss their implications for future research or policy decisions.

 

To improve the overall quality of the article, it would be advisable to conduct thorough proofreading to correct any spelling, grammar, or formatting errors. This will ensure that the article is presented in a professional and polished manner.

Author Response

Please see the response letter attached. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author, 

Please see the following:

Please erase the expression “in this section” from all paper, feels like a presentation of the work, it is not the case; lines 200, 207, 289, 317, 328, 337, 347, 360, 370, 480.

Line 10: waste production rate ->/ waste generation rate; replace production please; I think is more better to use generation because activities are directed towards production, and waste is an adjacent result of these activities no waste production is desired;

Line 20: Vehicle routing; erase please, is not so representative;

Section Conclusion: please specify the exact conclusions of the study, what are the concrete elements improved as a result of the study.

 

What are the concrete recommendations following the study carried out.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the response letter attached. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find enclosed my comments on the manuscript number sustainability-2291105 entitled "An Integrated Location-Scheduling-Routing Framework for a Smart Municipal Solid Waste System" submitted for publication in Journal of Sustainability. The topic sounds interesting. However, it is needed to do a major revision before consider to publish in this journal.

 

1.      The structure of the last paragraph of the introduction is not good and should be summarized. Please only show the novelty of the research in this paragraph.

2.      Material and Methods section is weak. Add material and method section befor Matematical Model setion. Describe all of the analysis method in material and methods. This part is not clear.

3.      Letter in table 2 should be described in table as a footnote or in the caption.

4.      The length of Fig.1 is too big

5.      In Fig.1, a, b and c should be mentioned in the caption

6.      More comparisons to other researches should be added in Results and Discussion section.

7.      Captions of table A.1 and 2 are too short and need to be revised.

8.      Table A1 needs to be moved to the material and methods. Because the parameter in table A1 is related to the table 2.

9.      Conclusion should be revised. Refreneces should be removed from conclusion part.

Author Response

Please see the response letter attached. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

It is a good article, however, the methodology section is weak. It is necessary to describe this section in every phase of your research. Please add a diagram to clarify this information. In addition, it would be required to explain the details of the study zone. Where is it? What is the weather like? You are describing a problem, facilities, disposal centers, etc. But the environmental factors must be considered to replicate your study to identify if your conclusions are valid in similar locations. The same information is missing for the conclusion sections: Does your paper contribute to solving similar problems in the US? Europe? Latinamerica? Asia? Please, clarify this information.

  This MS has new information about scheduling and routing a model for municipal solid waste systems. 

Topic original in the field.

It address a specific gap in the field, because there is not much information about mathematical models for municipal solid waste systems including facilities and disposal centers.

 

In other articles, there are no mathematical models proposed.

The methodology is short, which is the reason why I asked for a diagram including every phase of their article.

It is necessary to consider environmental factors because the weather can affect the routing model, so it is necessary to know the study zone to improve the understanding of their proposal.

They have consistent conclusions, however, there is no information about how this article can contribute to improving the same situation worldwide. It looks like it only applies to their city. This is the reason why I asked them to strengthen their conclusions.

I reviewed their references and most of them are recent references.

I have no further comments about tables and figures. They are clear and describe important information.

Author Response

Please see the response letter attached. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript describes the development of a model to improve the municipal solid waste system in cities that consider relevant parameters such as the facility location, shift scheduling, and vehicle routing decisions, the implementation of the model lets design adequate collection routes and it could be helpful for Decision Makers implicated in solid waste management systems in cities with adequate facilities (containers, transference centers, material recovery and waste to energy facilities) and enough collector trucks and transfer trailers. Model implementation could help to achieve sustainability goals in waste management systems. The manuscript is well redacted; some minor format corrections have to be addressed.

 

Commentaries:

 

In line 28, “annul” could be “annual”

Line 43, the word “literature” could be eliminated, for a more direct understanding of redaction.

In Figure 1, It could present general waste containers, not for recyclable materials, that the approach is focused on waste in general.

Table 1, Adjust table size and format for better data visualization.

Table 3, Adjust table size and format for better data visualization, if possible adjust the numeric data to just one digit after the point, especially for the greater values.

 

Figure 5, If possible adjust numerical data (use one or two digits after the point) in the right axes for better visualization

Author Response

Please see the response letter attached. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have produced a well-written and technically sound article that makes a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable waste management.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is revised based on the reviewers´ comments and could be accepted in this form

Reviewer 4 Report

Your MS has been modified significantly. It is now ready to be published. Congratulations!