Review Reports - Ranking Agility Factors to Reliably Sustain a Green Industrial Supply Chain Using the Fuzzy Analytic Network Process and Ordinal Priority Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study deals with an interesting and topical issue from many angles. The structure of the article is appropriate, easy to follow and read, but there are some parts that need improvement. The introduction and literature review of the paper meets the expectations, however, I suggest the authors not to start the montage with the number of the literature (e.g. 127 lines). I also suggest that the authors write the names of the authors next to the number of the literature in Table 1. In the methodology section, I find the presentation of the models very long, it is boring and distracts the reader from the point of the paper. And in the results section, I find the tables presented too many and the explanations too few, which would be more important. These proportions should be restored by the authors, which would be very important, and I would also suggest that the list of bibliographies should be standardised.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The comments

I suggest the authors not to start the montage with the number of the literature (e.g. 127 lines).
I also suggest that the authors write the names of the authors next to the number of the literature in Table 1.
In the methodology section, I find the presentation of the models very long, it is boring and distracts the reader from the point of the paper.
And in the results section, I find the tables presented too many and the explanations too few, which would be more important.
I would also suggest that the list of bibliographies should be standardised.

Response:

1. Corrected
2. Corrected
3. As much as possible, this section was summarized.
4. We have rewritten the results section and reduced the tables from 20 to 10.
5. We reformated the bibliographies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Name of the paper: Ranking the Agility Factors to Reliably Sustain a Green Industrial Supply Chain using FANP and OPA

The present paper employs a fuzzy analytic network (FANP) approach and the Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) in obtaining reliable sustainability in the green supply chain. The authors use SAIPA company for collecting quantitative data by undergoing fieldwork. The authors reveal the results as:” Customer Sensitivity was the most critical enabler, and Accurate customer-based measures were the most significant attribute for FANP. OPA results showed that Information Management was the first enabler, and Efficient funds transfer took the first place through all the attributes, and managers should pay more attention to these factors to develop agile supply chains in the SAIPA company.”

Comments:

1) Please refer to the abstract line no.16: "Both methods have shown that Quickness is th Please refer to the abstract lines no.22-23: “…shortcomings, such as difficulties in completing the pairwise comparison matrix and experts' judgment without sufficient knowledge about some attributes and others..”. ANP demands careful expert selection on the merit of experience, education, field knowledge and subject expertise in the field before they are invited for the decision-making. Hence, the suggested drawback may be invalid.

3) Please refer to line no.62: “The case of our paper is about the SAIPA Company's supply chain.’ The author may provide the background information/history of the case company to understand the significance of research in the same.

4) Please refer to lines 38,40: Green supply chain management may be GSC.

5) Please refer to line 78,107: Agile Supply Chain may be ASC.

6) Similarly, please check the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Analytic Network Process

7) Please refer to Figures 1,2 and 3 in the manuscript.

8) Please refer to Tables 1 to 20 in the manuscript.

9) Please refer to Figure 1. Relationship between components in ANP. Please add “influence/dependency” to indicate the relationship.

10) Please refer to 296: “…fuzzy Dematel …” may be “…fuzzy DEMATEL …”

11) What is the difference between Responsiveness and Quickness may be clarified.

12) Authors must provide more information on the questionnaire format or sample as an Appendix or supplementary file. Any statistical analysis carried out to check the responses if yes may be provided.

13) Please refer to “Table 12. Prioritizing attributes by three experts” who were these experts.

14) The computation carried out cannot be verified in the absence of a decision table from experts. Authors should provide one full illustration to support their conclusions.

15) Since the adopted research methodology involves complex computation, hence some limitations, authors should justify the adopted methodologies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Careful reading is required to remove typos and grammatical errors.

1) Please refer to line no. 353:Fig 3 should be Figure 3

2) Please refer to line 38:“…attention on social concerns..” should be “…attentions on social concerns…”

3) Please refer to line 38:“[27] provided the primary data..” should be “Alqudah et al., [27] provided the primary data..”

4) Please refer to line 504:“[Finally, Error! Reference source not found. shows the calculated weight." Needs to be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Comments:

4) Please refer to lines 38,40: Green supply chain management may be GSC.

5) Please refer to line 78,107: Agile Supply Chain may be ASC.

6) Similarly, please check the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Analytic Network Process

7) Please refer to Figures 1,2 and 3 in the manuscript.

8) Please refer to Tables 1 to 20 in the manuscript.

9) Please refer to Figure 1. Relationship between components in ANP. Please add “influence/dependency” to indicate the relationship.

10) Please refer to 296: “…fuzzy Dematel …” may be “…fuzzy DEMATEL …”

11) What is the difference between Responsiveness and Quickness may be clarified.

13) Please refer to “Table 12. Prioritizing attributes by three experts” who were these experts.

14) The computation carried out cannot be verified in the absence of a decision table from experts. Authors should provide one full illustration to support their conclusions.

15) Since the adopted research methodology involves complex computation, hence some limitations, authors should justify the adopted methodologies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Careful reading is required to remove typos and grammatical errors.

1) Please refer to line no. 353:Fig 3 should be Figure 3

2) Please refer to line 38:“…attention on social concerns..” should be “…attentions on social concerns…”

3) Please refer to line 38:“[27] provided the primary data..” should be “Alqudah et al., [27] provided the primary data..”

4) Please refer to line 504:“[Finally, Error! Reference source not found. shows the calculated weight." Needs to be corrected.

Response:

Corrected
We provided the background information of the case company to show the significance of this research.
The abbreviation "GSC" was identified in the first place and used instead of "Green supply chain" afterward.
The abbreviation "ASC" was identified in the first place and used instead of "Agile supply chain" afterward.
The abbreviations "ANP" and "AHP" were identified in the first place and used instead of their complete terms afterward.
Referred
Referred
Edited
Corrected
To the best of our knowledge, quickness capability refers to the ability to quickly adjust strategy, particularly in procurement, inventory management, and delivery systems, to meet rapidly changing supply chain requirements. On the other side, responsiveness capability is the ability to adapt in case of changes in demand or other variables and demands at a slower pace and, sometimes, customized orders.
The pairwise questionnaire used in this research is in Persian language. (Attached)
They were three experts working in SAIPA supply chain management (mentioned in the paper).
The FANP questionnaire is too long, and presenting a decision table in the paper might be impossible (file attached). An example of a decision table prioritizing attributes by three experts is in Table 7 (used in OPA).
In addition to the paper's primary purpose, we tried to show the ability of OPA in these kinds of problems with many research factors. As we mentioned in the discussion: "The OPA facilitates decision-making because it contains uncomplicated comparisons as input data.

Responses on the Quality of English Language:

We read the paper carefully to remove typos and grammatical errors.

Corrected
Attention here means "the act of listening to, looking at or thinking about something/somebody carefully; interest that people show in somebody/something."
In this definition, "attention" is uncountable.
Corrected
Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments

Dear Author/s, below are some of my comments which you may consider to work on:

The abstract is not clear. In order to make it much clearer for the readers kindly consider.

“To improve the abstract, it's important to provide clearer explanations of the methods, context, data collection process, and results. Adding more specific details and connecting the findings to their implications will enhance the overall clarity and impact of the abstract.”

Introduction: The author/s didn’t distinctly define its rationale. However, the author/s should be specific by narrowing it down to the focus of the study. Make sure that the flow of research is smooth and organized.

For instance, the introduction lacks a clear focus and structure. It introduces a wide range of concepts related to sustainability, supply chain management, agility, and decision-making methods without a clear narrative that guides the reader.

Key concepts such as "agile supply chain," "sustainable supply chain," "FANP" and "OPA" methods are introduced without clear and concise definitions. This can lead to confusion for readers unfamiliar with these terms.

Author/s mentions "SAIPA Company" as the subject without providing any background or context about the company or its industry. Readers need more information to understand the relevance of the study. The explanation of the FANP and OPA methods is brief and lacks clarity. Readers may not fully understand these methods' significance or how they will be applied in the study.

The transition between sections is abrupt. The introduction does not smoothly guide the reader into the next section, which may make it difficult to follow the flow of the paper.

Novelty of the study is missing; proper aims and objectives are missing. It is requested that the author/s must consider those points and revise the whole introduction part with proper chained statements along with reliable references.

Literature: There is an acceptable acknowledgement of the subject literature, but it would add more value if at the start of the manuscript already a clear indication of the literature that has already explored the different modes. Then the literature deals with facets that are of specific relevance to the scope of this paper. These issues might be addressed but it is very hard to follow. I am missing a clear flow of logically connected arguments like, why the author/s uses numbering between the text. Dear author/s try to make a clear flow and engagement of statements without such kinds of numbers and dots.

Material and methods are not properly given, very poorly written. Need improvements, for me it's not acceptable in the current format.

In line number 87 and 90 the author/s mentioned “research in [14] and researcher in [15]. This is not the right way to cite articles. Correct that

The methodology section is nicely developed but Fig. 1 is confusing. Re-design Fig. 1 properly.

Fig.2 is adapted from some other studies or its author's own estimation. Make it clear

Focus on sentence structure and clarity of arguments. I didn’t feel a flow of ideas.

I feel the discussion section is very concise therefore author/s needs to write it comprehensively and also improve the conclusion section.

If permission is granted to resubmit, I strongly suggest that the manuscript needs serious revision, in terms of novelty, and in terms of write-up, which I think is very weak, supposed to be professionally edited, first, for the flow of discussion and chained statements. English is not my first language, but I really found it difficult to follow the discussions.

Best of Luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

clear flow and connection in arguments are missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We cleared flow and connection in arguments and improved the missing connections.

Abstract: improved to provide clearer explanations of the methods, context, data collection process, and results with adding more specific details.

Introduction:

We tried to improve the smoothness of this section and organize the ideas and the structure:
Paragraph one: an introduction about GSC and sustainability in a clear format and determining the need for agility.
Paragraph two: an introduction about ASC and its importance.
Paragraph three: research questions and background about SAIPA and challenges in its supply chain.
Paragraph four: our motivation and goals and the ways of handling the problem.
Paragraph five: introduce the analysis tools used in the research briefly.
Paragraph six: the paper structure.

Literature:

The literature is improved, and formats are corrected.
Due to the comprehensiveness of the research area, we could not explore the different modes. ASC and sustainability have been broadened in recent years, so we tried to be specific.

Methodology:

We redesigned Figure 1.

We plotted Figure 2 ourself.

Discussion:

We improved the discussion and conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study has been much improved from the original version, and I consider it suitable for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your previous comments to improve the paper's quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version. The following comment has not been successfully addressed.

15. Since the adopted research methodology involves complex computation hence some limitations, authors should justify the adopted methodologies

(a)Please refer to lines 84 to 90 they look very general. Please modify them to justify the use of ANP and OPA in the present research. You may also get the justification by answering why other methods cannot be applied.

(b)When you are using and suggesting this method in your present research, it will be worth putting the statement in favor of these two methods (ANP and OPA) and the obvious drawback (as mentioned in the abstract) may be moved to the limitation part of this research at the end after discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for the revised version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Comments:
(a)Please refer to lines 84 to 90 they look very general. Please modify them to justify the use of ANP and OPA in the present research. You may also get the justification by answering why other methods cannot be applied.

(b)When you are using and suggesting this method in your present research, it will be worth putting the statement in favor of these two methods (ANP and OPA) and the obvious drawback (as mentioned in the abstract) may be moved to the limitation part of this research at the end after discussion.

Response:
a) We added some text at the end of this paragraph to justify applying ANP and OPA.
b) We put the statement in favor of the methods and the drawback at the end of the conclusions.

Thank you for your comments to improve the paper's quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the author/s for addressing my comments properly. All the points that I Highlighted were properly addressed by the author/s and I am satisfied with the current version. The abstract is improved as instructed, in the introduction two main questions are given in lines 64-66, and besides that major challenges are also listed, which is good. The literature section is updated in terms of citations and chained arguments.

Further, the manuscript write-up is properly chained, research questions are highlighted properly and the results properly mirror the research questions. The current formatting is satisfactory. Author/s nicely covers my points, which is very good and I am satisfied with that. Further, I still find a few minor mistakes in the writeup that need to be fixed before the manuscript goes under further process, which are;

1) Manuscript Formatting

2) Author/s gave a plane text at the bottom of each table, I would recommend writing Notes for table explanations at the bottom of each table.

3) Why did the author/s use colors in Table formatting from Tables 1-10?

Rest I feel the author/s hard work is appreciable.

Best of Luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is improved and just need to check through Grammarly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Comments:
1) Manuscript Formatting
2) Author/s gave a plane text at the bottom of each table, I would recommend writing Notes for table explanations at the bottom of each table.
3) Why did the author/s use colors in Table formatting from Tables 1-10?

Response:

The formating was checked regarding to the journal's standards.
We added some notes at the bottom of each table.
We removed the colors of the tables.

Thank you for your comments to improve the paper's quality.