Porcelain Supply Chain Coordination Considering the Preferences of Consumers against the Background of E-Commerce
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors consider an interesting area of supply chain research, namely , online trading of fragile products or porcelain packaging. However, authors must consider the following points to improve the article and make this publishable in this highly established journal:
1. More indepth discussion regarding advantages and drawbacks of current porcelin packaging is required. Thus, authors need to separately discuss this in a section. Related literature should be explored and studied.
2. Authors use the term "single supplier and a single online retailer". What do you mean by online retrailer? In majority of ecommerce setups, supplier/manufacturer directly sell the porcelin items online. Is this hypothetical or do you have some real life examples?
3. State the problem definition in one/two sentences to add clarity.
4. Authors take the Sensitivity coefficient of market demand to price as fixed. Does it match with real life scenarios?
5. In the model, demand related assumptions are simple and unrealted to real life. Is the demand growth of porcelin items linear? Specify the source of this information.
6. More meaningful insights can be extracted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. Based on your suggestion, we have revised the paper and marked the revised part in yellow. Please refer to the attachment for the response to the review comments. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See the comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. Based on your suggestion, we have revised the paper and marked the revised parts in yellow. Please refer to the attachment for the response to the review comments. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors establish three decision-making models to improve the packaging level of porcelain in e-commerce transactions. While the proposed work sounds interesting, I have the following comments:
1. A flow chart or multiple flow charts can be added to describe the established models.
2. The results of the proposed models should be compared with other recent models to show the merit of the work and superiority over the available models.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. Based on your suggestion, we have revised the paper and marked the revised parts in yellow. Please refer to the attachment for the response to the review comments. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper turns out to be interesting because it addresses the issue of packaging for fragile product supply chains by considering a number of cases that have arisen downstream of the spread of e-commerce ordering. My suggestions are related to minor revisions, which help to better situate the paper and the discussion addressed. Specifically:
1) Modify the introduction: better highlight at the end of the paragraph the innovative contribution of the paper that is subtended below the lines. What are the novel elements in the analysis compared to the literature? what gap does it cover?
2) Is it possible to say something about the sustainability perspective? How does a particular type of packaging affect the pollution produced? Could using sustainable materials affect costs and decision-making scenarios among different actors? A focus on how sustainability impacts the cases described or future research in that direction, even in the conclusions would be very useful and in line with the themes of the journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. Based on your suggestion, we have revised the paper and marked the revised parts in yellow. Please refer to the attachment for the response to the review comments. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors took care of all the points raised in previous submission. This manuscript seems to be acceptable for publcation in this prestigious journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. We invited an English teacher to help us modify language expression and grammar issues. The modified parts are highlighted in blue, while other changes are highlighted in yellow.
Best Regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have clearly mentioned all the comments. Nicely presented in the current manuscript. but still two scientific question are their to verify their optimal results.
1. Figure 2 mentioned the optimal results. Please share the code how can you draw it. What is the scientific logic.
2. Similarly, share the code of Figure 5 and its scientific illustration.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. We invited an English teacher to help us modify language expression and grammar issues. The modified parts are highlighted in blue, while other changes are highlighted in yellow. Please refer to the attachment for the response to the review comments.
Best Regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed my comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for the comments and careful reading on our paper. We invited an English teacher to help us modify language expression and grammar issues. The modified parts are highlighted in blue, while other changes are highlighted in yellow.
Best Regards.
