Evaluation of the Environmental Cost of Integrated Inbound Logistics: A Case Study of a Gigafactory of a Chinese Logistics Firm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals about inbound logistics environmental cost of a Giga factory done by the mapping relationships between the different logistics phases. The following suggestions could be improve the quality expectations of the targeted readers

 

1.   The flow of language has to be enriching many grammatical and typo errors are found.

2.   Literature survey and needful research gap not in the high level fit of chosen field research.

3.   The clumsiness of the modelling part has to be modified by the the simple form of mathematical relationship.

4.   Result and outcome part will be improved. Since outcomes of work not expressed in user understanding forms

5.   Abstract and conclusion sections to be fine tuned with exact gap of problems and finings outcome of this conducted case study

 The flow of language has to be enriching many grammatical and typo errors are found.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the evaluation of the environmental costs of inbound logistics operations. The subject of the paper is interesting, contemporary, and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the paper could be better written. Some major issues need to be addressed. More detailed comments are provided below.

1.     The abstract should be improved. The authors mentioned that „satisfactory results were obtained“, but they should provide the actual results (in brief) rather than just saying that they obtained them. Also, they should highlight the main conclusions and contributions of the paper. They should also make the abstract more balanced (the abstract should contain four main parts, background, methodology, results, and conclusions, and the authors should try to cover all these aspects as even as possible).

2.     Main results and conclusions should also be highlighted in the Introduction. The authors should also consider formulating clear research questions in the Introduction.

3.     The authors provided a solid literature review regarding the main aspects of the research. However, the reviewed references could have been more recent. There are only two references from the last three years. In addition, the authors didn't identify research gaps regarding all aspects of the problem.

4.     It is unclear how the authors established logistics phases and basic activities. Is this their opinion or is it based on some literature? It seems very arbitrary. I would like to see this corroborated with some literature.

5.     It would be much clearer if the authors provided a graphical representation of the mapping described within sub-sections 3.1.3.

6.     What is novel in the proposed methodology? The authors should highlight the novelties.

7.     The notation is too extensive. I think it could be condensed. Also, check if there are no overlaps (usage of the same letters for different things).

8.     The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the article's actual contribution to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature. In addition, the discussion should point out the limitations and theoretical and practical implications of the study.

9.     Future research directions are weak. The authors should provide 3-5 solid future research directions that would be interesting to most of the Journal readership.

10.  English writing should be revised. Certain syntax and style errors need to be addressed.

11.  certain technical issues need to be addressed:

a)     The abstract slightly exceeds the limited number of words indicated in the Instructions for authors.

b)    There should be at least a couple of sentences between headings of different levels (e.g. between section 2 and sub-section 2.1, etc.).

c)     Text formatting parameters are not consistent throughout the paper.

d)    References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated).

e)     Some references are missing certain elements, such as volume or page numbers. Check and complete all references.

a)      Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. For example, the abbreviation „GHG“ is not defined in the main text. Check the rest of the paper.

f)     All references from the reference list must be cited somewhere in the main text. For example, the reference [36] is not cited anywhere. Check the rest of the references.

1.     English writing should be revised. Certain syntax and style errors need to be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper introduces the Inbound Logistics Environmental Cost (ILEC) concept for Giga factories and proposes a methodology to assess it. The case study of the Geely Automobile factory validates the model's feasibility, providing insights into the sustainable development of the logistics industry.

- A research framework is needed before presenting the model

- Figures sources are undisclosed

- Data availability for the Geely case study is not confirmed.

- The presented model should also be structured and tested with multiple case studies to provide benchmarking and value ranges (similar to a rating scale). The model output should be expressed in percentages instead of absolute values to be useful. Otherwise, the scale of the businesses analysed will not be comparable.

- the selection process of the parameters is not clear

- adequate weighting for each parameter could add detail and relevance to the model

- conclusions are not followed by adequate discussion

- study limitations are undisclosed

- suggestions for future studies can help identify other research gaps.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues from the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their research. Therefore, I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.