Evolution of Green Vehicle Routing Problem: A Bibliometric and Visualized Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe ideas in this paper are good. However, this article still need to be revised as follows:
1. The Introduction need to be enhanced about the VRP. These articles may be helpful for improving this paper: the fourth-party logistics routing problem using ant colony system-improved grey wolf optimization, 4pl routing problem using hybrid beetle swarm optimization, a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm for the multi-objective location-routing problem in the early post-disaster stage.
2. What is the significance of the average year of publication (APY)? The explanation of it in the article is not strong enough.
3. In section 4.2 Research Potential Evaluation, cold chain logistics is a "hard core", with high attention and high maturity, does it conflict with the size of cold chain logistics in section 3.2.2 typical clusters?
4. In section 3.2.2 Typical clustering,” #5 Waste Collection” and “#6 Two-Echelon Location-Routing Problem” are better with some description of the relevant algorithms.
5. The second innovation point applies econometric software and related technologies, which is not very innovative, and it is recommended to add innovation points.
6. The superscript of Figure 5 when it first appears should be removed, and the extra commas that appear in the title also should be removed.
7. The 1997 and 1998 marked by Figure 6 can be deleted. And Figure 6 is blurry and should be replaced with a clearer one.
8. The conclusion can be appropriately expanded, add some prospects for the future.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper reports a robust literature review in the green vehicle routing problem (GVRP) to gain a general understanding of the research status quo about this optimization problem.
I do not really understand why you are reporting statistics about the nations of the authors or universities that have published GVRP, I also do not understand why you are reporting the top 20 mostly cited journals on GVRP, why is this relevant information? Why do you need to analyze the number of citations and co-citations? You can just let us know what the most important GVRP papers are according with these measures.
Contrary, I do understand the importance of highlighting the authors that have really contributed to GVRP because I understand you might not be able to report all the papers, as you start doing in page 13 to the end, you wrote a summary of contributions, aims, methodology, results, conclusions, etc. by clustering into different keywords.
This paper is interesting and provides a good overview of the GVRP literature, however, the paper is too long, mainly because it is providing unnecessary information that is not important to the reader. In my opinion the important contributions of this paper, if summarizing the literature review on GVRP could be considered as a contribution, it starts in page 13 to the end. I would advice the authors to resume the information writen from page 1 to page 13, the paper is too long, and the information written in those pages are not really relevant.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
your paper offers a meticulously executed bibliometric review of research concerning the Green Vehicle Routing Problem (GVRP) from 2000 to 2021. The identification of leading authors andpapers means substantial contributions to the area.
The micro-level analysis, with its density and overlay visualizations, keyword analyses, and reference co-citation clustering, delves deeper into the thematic aspects of GVRP research. The main highlight to raise interest of reader of the paper is incorporation of a Research Potential Evaluation (RPE) model to predict future trends is a notable feature of this study. The model's projection of promising areas for future research, such as fuel consumption, EVRP, and cold chain logistics, adds practical value for scholars and researchers.The paper is well-structured and well-written, making it accessible to a broad readership. The inclusion of visual aids and graphics enhances the presentation of complex data.
It is evident that substantial effort has been invested in conducting this study, and it significantly contributes to the understanding of the evolution and trends within the GVRP research area.
However as reviewer I suggest some recommendation for improvement:
-
pp. 3
-
Figure 1. Four phases of literature growth. Is this authors own work or is based on reference mentined above?
-
pp. 18
-
Figure 7. Research potential evaluation model it not clear the desciption in quadrants. Could you improve it? this part is very interestign for readers so it wil incerase impact of paper
-
-
-
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and suggestions are given in the following annex.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Greater attention to form and the use of the English language is necessary, avoiding circumstantial introductory phrases, informal expressions, and punctuation errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have failed to explain why they have conducted this Bibliometric and Visualized Review. what are the objective and research gap in it.
Research gap is very important to show the uniqueness of the study.
What is meaning of visualized review? Data need to be furnished.
Authors have not the data and material collection process. how many they have selected. what is criteria for the selection of the paper. Data need to be furnished.
Many papers are not included. Paper such as https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2021.118737 should be included in introduction and literature review section.
What is the outcomes of the research? how readers will get benefited with this study, data need to be furnished.
Novelty of the research should be highlighted in all the section.
Future research direction should be explained in more details.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend this paper to be accepted for its publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have incorporated the comments improving the quality of the work. The manuscript can be accepted in its present form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAttention to form and use of the English language is necessary, avoiding circumstantial introductory phrases and punctuation errors.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have incorporated almost all the comments. The Manuscript may be accepted in its current form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
