Evaluating the Effects of Logistics Center Location: An Analytical Framework for Sustainable Urban Logistics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research is well-done, but the language makes it difficult to follow. The grammatical and syntactical errors interfere with understanding many of the authors' points.
The paper needs extensive editing before a good decision can be made.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your serious consideration and constructive comments on the paper “Evaluating the effects of logistics center location: An analytical framework for sustainable urban logistics” with Manuscript sustainability-2128520. In this revision, we tried to make the best possible improvement in addressing your concerns. In the following, we provide our point-to-point responses to your comments. We present your suggestions in black and our answers in Red.
Point 1: The research is well-done, but the language makes it difficult to follow. The grammatical and syntactical errors interfere with understanding many of the authors' points. The paper needs extensive editing before a good decision can be made. Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response 1: Thank you for your encouragement. We are sorry that the grammatical and syntactical errors in language hamper your understanding of this paper. We have carefully improved the language of this paper to our best. After that, for further language improvement, we invited an English Language expert in this study field to revise this paper again.
Point 2: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved.
Response 2: Thank you for your useful comments. We have expanded the bibliographic review, updated it with the latest literature about this paper, and also rewritten the literature review in Section 2 of this revised manuscript to make it clearer and more succinct. The introduction in Section 1 also has been rewritten to contextualize with respect to the previous and present theoretical background. Please see pages 1-5 of the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Must be improved.
Response 3: Many thanks for your constructive advice. We have improved the results and discussion in Section 5 and rewritten the conclusion in Section 6 of this revised manuscript.
And also some latest literature have been added to support the discussion of the main findings in these two Sections. Please see pages 15-22 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 4: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Must be improved
Response 4: We are sorry that the unclear presentation in the result analysis and discussion causes confusion. We appreciate your constructive comments, which have greatly improved this paper. Following your instruction, Section 5 results and discussion have been written to eliminate ambiguity.
Point 5: is the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Must be improved
Response 5: Many thanks for your valuable suggestions. Your comments have helped us consolidate the credibility of the conclusions in this paper. Following your instruction, the latest literature closely related to this paper have been reviewed again and update the content of Section 2 Literature review. Meanwhile, we have rewritten the conclusion of this paper with a more in-depth discussion of the main findings and policy implications. Please see pages 3-5, and 21-22 of the revised manuscript.
We truly appreciate your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions, which help us greatly improve the quality of this paper in various aspects. We hope that our revision has properly addressed your concerns. We sincerely thank you for the chance you give us and the time you put into this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript's title is inappropriate, as it should read "analytical framework" instead of "analysis framework." The content of the manuscript is suitable for this journal.
The study aims to develop an analytical framework to identify logistics centre locations in Beijing considering truck travel behaviour and different objectives to quantify the effects of logistics centre location on travel time, transport cost, carbon emissions, and road traffic.
The abstract section does not contain any information on which optimization tool was used for the analysis. Besides, the results mentioned in the abstract are not precise.
The introduction section needs more clarity, as the need for the study needs to be better justified. Also, the organisation of the remainder of the paper should have been provided to help understand the flow of such a long manuscript.
The literature review section needs to be strengthened by including the latest articles relating to the topic of the study, and the gaps in the existing literature should be explicit. A few articles have been suggested in the attached PDF document.
The methodology section is too voluminous; please condense this section by eliminating less critical information. The manuscript’s structure makes it look like a thesis chapter, which is inappropriate for a journal article.
The pictorial presentation of the results looks good. The results of the analysis could have been explained in a better and easier way.
The manuscript has a lot of grammatical errors and inconsistently written words (some of them are highlighted in yellow). For instance, "centers" and "centres" have been used in several places. Please see the attached PDF for the additional comments.
I advise the authors to have a native English speaker read and amend their paper before resubmitting it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your serious consideration and constructive comments on the paper “Evaluating the effects of logistics center location: An analytical framework for sustainable urban logistics” with Manuscript sustainability-2128520. We have carefully thought over all of your suggestions and seriously improved this paper to our best. In the following, we provide our point-to-point responses to your comments. We present your suggestions in black and our answers in Red.
Point 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved
Response 1: We have expanded the bibliographic review, updated it with the latest literature about this paper, and also rewritten the literature review in Section 2 of this revised manuscript to make it clearer and more succinct. The introduction in Section 1 also has been rewritten to contextualize with respect to the previous and present theoretical background. Please see pages 1-5 of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Are all the cited references relevant to the research? Can be improved
Response 2: We have updated bibliographic references especially dealing with sustainable urban logistics. Meanwhile, the introduction and literature review have been written, with the articles from the last five years having been given.
Point 3: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved
Response 3: We have improved the results and discussion in Section 5 and rewritten the conclusion in Section 6 of this revised manuscript. And also some latest literature have been added to support the discussion of the main findings in these two Sections. Please see pages 15-22 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 4: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Must be improved
Response 4: Following your instruction, Section 5 results and discussion have been written to eliminate ambiguity.
Point 5: Is the article adequately referenced? Must be improved
Response 5: According to your suggestion, we have expanded the bibliographic review, after reading dozens of latest literatures related to this studies. After that , 42 new literature have been added to the literature review in Section 2 of this revised manuscript. Please see pages 1-5 and 22-24 of the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Can be improved
Response 6: Following your instruction, latest literature closely related to this paper have been reviewed again and updated Setion 2 Literature review. Meanwhile, we have rewritten the conclusion of this paper with a more in-depth discussion of the main findings and policy implications. Please see pages 3-5, and 21-22 of the revised manuscript.
Point 7: The manuscript's title is inappropriate, as it should read "analytical framework" instead of "analysis framework." The content of the manuscript is suitable for this journal.
Response 7: We have replaced the "analysis framework" with "analytical framework" in both the title and all following content.
Point 8: The abstract section does not contain any information on which optimization tool was used for the analysis. Besides, the results mentioned in the abstract are not precise.
Response 8: We have rewritten the abstract section to describe the optimization tool used in the paper and the key results precisely.
Point 9: The introduction section needs more clarity, as the need for the study needs to be better justified. Also, the organization of the remainder of the paper should have been provided to help understand the flow of such a long manuscript.
Response 9: We have rewritten the introduction to make it more clear, and added the organization of the remainder of the paper. Please see pages 1-3 of the revised manuscript.
Point 10: The literature review section needs to be strengthened by including the latest articles relating to the topic of the study, and the gaps in the existing literature should be explicit. A few articles have been suggested in the attached PDF document.
Response 10: Following your instruction, we have read dozens of related latest literature, updated some references, and rewritten the literature review (in Section 2) to explicate the gaps in the existing literature. The attached PDF documents also have been added to this paper. Please see line 204-208 in the third paragraph on page 4 of the revised manuscript.
Point 11: The methodology section is too voluminous; please condense this section by eliminating less critical information. The manuscript’s structure makes it look like a thesis chapter, which is inappropriate for a journal article.
Response 11: According to your suggestions, the methodology section has been rewritten to be more succinct. Meanwhile, we have restructured this paper, particularly the structure of Section 3. Please see pages 6-11 of the revised manuscript.
Point 12: The pictorial presentation of the results looks good. The results of the analysis could have been explained in a better and easier way.
Response 12: Thank you for encouraging our work and giving us useful comments. We have rewritten the result analysis and discussion in Section 5 to make it clearer and more in-depth. Please see pages 14-20 of the revised manuscript.
Point 13: The manuscript has a lot of grammatical errors and inconsistently written words (some of them are highlighted in yellow). For instance, "centers" and "centres" have been used in several places. Please see the attached PDF for the additional comments. I advise the authors to have a native English speaker read and amend their paper before resubmitting it.
Response 13: Following your instruction, we have carefully rewritten this paper again to remove the grammatical errors and inconsistently written words in this paper. After that, for further language improvement, we invited an English Language expert in this study field to revise this paper again.
We truly appreciate your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions, which help us greatly improve the quality of this paper in various aspects. We hope that our revision has properly addressed your concerns. We sincerely thank you for the chance you give us and the time you put into this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The text entitled "EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF LOGISTICS CENTER LOCATION: AN ANALYSIS 1 FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN LOGISTICS" is interesting and addresses road transport in China, especially in Beijing, and seeks to propose a framework for calculating ground logistics.
The text needs to be improved in light of the Smart Cities that are the goal of long-term Chinese development, as well as the points for improvement that follow below:
Point 1. Lines 40 to 43. Authors need to update bibliographic references in the introduction. Priority should be given to articles from the last five years, especially those dealing with Smart Cities, Smart and Sustainable Cities, and Smart Logistics which are development priorities in China.
In the MDPI itself, there are several updated articles on the subject. Consider 70% of articles from the last five years.
Point 2. Lines 51 to 55. Same comment on the outdated bibliographies used (revise and update the entire theoretical basis). Authors should expand the bibliographic review and update it with a preferably systematized review methodology, such as PRISMA (https://prisma-statement.org).
At a minimum, define the databases searched, the keywords, and the search period.
Point 3. Lines 56 to 60. Consider the new technological tools for geolocation and spatialization. The use of the green fleet of trucks, electric vehicles, and the last mile of delivery should be essential factors in the authors' discussion.
Point 4. Lines 78 to 81. Bring at least five references from the last five years that address the issue and carbon emissions. What are the effects of COP27 and the United Nations 2030 Agenda on these studies? The entire introduction needs to be revised by the authors.
Point 5. Item 3. Who was the methodological structure defined by? There is no citation of any authors.
Point 6. Lines 255 to 259. Did the authors consider the differences between vehicle types, such as light vehicles, heavy vehicles, and multimodal transport?
Point 7. Lines 265 to 272. Where are the variables such as environmental noise, consumption of fossil fuels, and traffic generation in localities, consider the context of Smart Cities where the application of new technologies, including energy sources, is not only a reality, but it will also become more and more consolidated in the coming years.
Point 8. Lines 403 to 407. Simulation tools based on theories of smart supply chains can and should be taken into account by the authors. Rethink how to include it in the proposed framework.
Point 9. Lines 419 to 431. How to consider the function and holistic nature of logistics and supply chain management (SCM) especially when the costs of cargo handling are significant, trucks that are stopped and cause waste or inefficiency in the process total? How to rethink the light of Smart Cities, the total time of loading and unloading operation? How does it influence the result of the logistical cost and last-mile delivery alternatives? Are information technologies the solution to resolve such issues? Reflect and bring to the text.
Point 10. Lines 466 to 469. For readers who are not from China, the authors need to detail the law and its name for future registration and research by new researchers on the subject. Adjust.
Point 11. Lines 486 to 489. The games have passed and we are moving toward 2023 the article was developed before 2022 and is out of date. Readjust.
Point 12. According to the field, surveys were carried out by whom? In which period was this research carried out and with which target population?
Point 13. Lines 560 to 563. There are no updated bibliographic references that support any studies of carbon emissions. Authors must insert in the bibliographic review to be redone or removed from the title and specific objects of the presented study.
Point 14. Item 6. Conclusion. The conclusions are compromised by the bibliographic study being outdated and without proper references on current studies of carbon emissions, especially in Beijing. Readjust after changes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your serious consideration and constructive comments on the paper “Evaluating the effects of logistics center location: An analytical framework for sustainable urban logistics” with Manuscript sustainability-2128520. We have carefully thought over all of your suggestions and seriously improved this paper to our best. In the following, we provide our point-to-point responses to your comments. We present your suggestions in black and our answers in Red.
Point 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Must be improved
Response 1: We have expanded the bibliographic review, updated it with the latest literature about this paper, and also rewritten the literature review in Section 2 of this revised manuscript to make it clearer and more succinct. The introduction in Section 1 also has been rewritten to contextualize with respect to the previous and present theoretical background. Please see pages 1-5 of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Are all the cited references relevant to the research? Must be improved
Response 2: According to this suggestion, we have reviewed the literature involving Smart City, Smart and Sustainable urban logistics. Then some new references closely related to this study have been added to the revised manuscript. In addition, these references to the logistics center location problem and the evaluation of the effects of logistics center location also have been updated in a more careful manner. Please see lines 33-70 on pages 1-2 and lines 125-236 on pages 3-5 of the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Can be improved
Response 3: Following your instruction, we have rewritten the forth paragraph of Section 1 Introduction to make the research questions of this paper more explicit. Meanwhile, the methodology section of this paper also has been rewritten to make it clearer and more succinct. Please see lines 97-103 on page 3 and pages 5-11 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 4: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved
Response 4: In the revised manuscript, the results and discussion in Section 5 and the conclusion in Section 6 have been rewritten in a more coherent manner. And also we have added some latest literature to support the discussion of the main findings in these two Sections. Please see pages 14-21 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 5: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Can be improved
Response 5: We are sorry that the unclear presentation in the result analysis and discussion causes confusion. Following your instruction, Section 5 results and discussion have been written to eliminate ambiguity. Please see pages 14-20 of the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Is the article adequately referenced? Must be improved
Response 6: According to your suggestion, we have expanded the bibliographic review, after reading dozens of the latest literature related to this study. After that, 42 new pieces of literature have been added to the literature review in Section 2 of this revised manuscript. Please see pages 3-5 of the revised manuscript.
Point 7: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Must be improved
Response 7: Many thanks for your valuable suggestions. Your comments have helped us consolidate the credibility of the conclusions in this paper. Following your instruction, the latest literature closely related to this paper have been reviewed again and update the content of Section 2 Literature review. Meanwhile, we have rewritten the conclusion of this paper with a more in-depth discussion of the main findings and policy implications. Please see pages 3-5, and 20-21 of the revised manuscript.
Point 8: Lines 40 to 43. Authors need to update bibliographic references in the introduction. Priority should be given to articles from the last five years, especially those dealing with Smart Cities, Smart and Sustainable Cities, and Smart Logistics which are development priorities in China.
In the MDPI itself, there are several updated articles on the subject. Consider 70% of articles from the last five years.
Response 8: Following this instruction, we have rewritten the introduction after reading dozens of the latest literature related to Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, and Smart and Sustainable Logistics. Meanwhile, the literature review in Section 2 has also been improved by updating outdated articles. Overall, the bibliographic references from the last five years have taken account for 75% of the revised manuscript.
Point 9: Lines 51 to 55. Same comment on the outdated bibliographies used (revise and update the entire theoretical basis). Authors should expand the bibliographic review and update it with a preferably systematized review methodology, such as PRISMA (https://prisma-statement.org).
At a minimum, define the databases searched, the keywords, and the search period.
Response 9: Many thanks for the constructive advice and the recommendation of review methodology PRISMA. Under the instruction of the PRISMA 2020 Checklist and PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews, which included searches of databases and registers only, we have reviewed the literature again to revise and update the entire theoretical basis. In this process, Web of Science was combined with Baidu Scholar. The initial search respectively used the general keywords “Smart and Sustainable Cities (Freight Transport or logistics), Smart city (urban) Logistics, Sustainable city (urban) Logistics, (freight transport)”, but this was later narrowed down to records published between 2019 and 2023, and subject areas ‘Engineering’, ’Geography’, ’Transportation’, ’Operations Research Management Science’,’ Urban studies’. Considering the relevance of this study, the 275 initial records were screened by their title and abstract and were purged down to 89. After further reading these articles, 42 new literature closely related to this study’s questions have been used to update the bibliographies of this paper.
Point 10: Lines 56 to 60. Consider the new technological tools for geolocation and spatialization. The use of the green fleet of trucks, electric vehicles, and the last mile of delivery should be essential factors in the authors' discussion.
Response 10: The discussion about the use of the green fleet of trucks, electric vehicles, and the last mile of delivery has been added to the third paragraph in Section 1, and the third paragraph in Section 3. Please see lines 48-52 on page 2, and lines 416-435 on page 10 of the revised manuscript.
Point 11: Lines 78 to 81. Bring at least five references from the last five years that address the issue and carbon emissions. What are the effects of COP27 and the United Nations 2030 Agenda on these studies? The needs to be revised by the authors.
Response 11: As the abovementioned, we have carefully revised and updated all outdated bibliographies, and added new literature about the issue and carbon emissions. And also, we have rewritten the entire introduction, in which the effects of COP27 and the United Nations 2030 Agenda have been discussed in the first and second paragraphs. Please see lines 32-70 on pages 1-2 of the revised manuscript.
Point 12: Item 3. Who was the methodological structure defined by? There is no citation of any authors.
Response 12: We are sorry for this neglect. In this revised manuscript, the related literature to support the proposed methodology of this paper has been added. Please see lines 278-286 and 292-301 on page 7, lines 310-318 on pages 7-8, and lines 417-426 on page 10 of the revised manuscript.
Point 13: Lines 255 to 259. Did the authors consider the differences between vehicle types, such as light vehicles, heavy vehicles, and multimodal transport?
Response 13: No, we didn’t. Indeed, the discussion about the differences between vehicle types has been a hot point of discussion in recent decades in the studies of urban logistics and freight transport. However, this paper aims to evaluate the effects of logistics center location on different parts of (economic, environmental and social) sustainability objectives and explore the conflicting level among them, in which the focus is placed on freight mobility considering different objectives of vehicle path planning. Therefore, the differences between vehicle types, such as light vehicles, heavy vehicles, and multimodal transport, were not considered in this paper. Surely, that would be good to include this discussion in future work.
Point 14: Lines 265 to 272. Where are the variables such as environmental noise, consumption of fossil fuels, and traffic generation in localities, consider the context of Smart Cities where the application of new technologies, including energy sources, is not only a reality, but it will also become more and more consolidated in the coming years.
Response 14: The variables about the consumption of fossil fuels, and traffic generation in localities were mainly addressed in the methodology section. Please see lines 361-383 on page 9 of the revised manuscript. But we are sorry that the issue of environmental noise is not taken into account in this paper because the standard of noise in different areas in a city generally is different, so it is hard to be measured while considering freight mobility in the whole city.
Point 15: Lines 403 to 407. Simulation tools based on theories of smart supply chains can and should be taken into account by the authors. Rethink how to include it in the proposed framework.
Response 15: Thank you for your useful suggestion. Indeed, the application of the proposed analytical framework in this paper needs to collect vast amounts of location and traffic data, where some technologies based on theories of smart supply chains, particularly information and communication technology, can make great difference. Some information about them has been added to the first paragraph in Section 3.4 to explicate their function in the application of the proposed analytical framework. Please see lines 477-493 on page 11 of the revised manuscript.
Point 16: Lines 419 to 431. How to consider the function and holistic nature of logistics and supply chain management (SCM) especially when the costs of cargo handling are significant, trucks that are stopped and cause waste or inefficiency in the process total? How to rethink the light of Smart Cities, the total time of loading and unloading operation? How does it influence the result of the logistical cost and last-mile delivery alternatives? Are information technologies the solution to resolve such issues? Reflect and bring to the text.
Response 16: Many thanks for your constructive advice. Following your instruction, we have carefully reviewed, and read the literature related to these issues and conducted a discussion with other researchers in this field. Then, through further in-depth thinking about this literature and communication, we have obtained some useful information and added it to this paper. Please see lines 48-53on page 2, lines 477-493 on page 11, and lines 778-791 on page 21 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 17: Lines 466 to 469. For readers who are not from China, the authors need to detail the law and its name for future registration and research by new researchers on the subject. Adjust.
Response 17: The detailed law and its name have been added to the first paragraph of Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. Please see lines 153-157 on page 4, and lines 522-531 on page 13 of the revised manuscript.
Point 18: Lines 486 to 489. The games have passed and we are moving toward 2023 the article was developed before 2022 and is out of date. Readjust.
Response 18: Thank you for giving us this reminder. We have adjusted all related information.
Point 19: According to the field, surveys were carried out by whom? In which period was this research carried out and with which target population?
Response 19: In this paper, authors investigated the timing of commercial activities in 26 supermarkets and large food & fruit stores in September-October 2022. The related information in Section 4.2 has been updated. Please see lines 562-564 on page 14 of this revised manuscript.
Point 20: Lines 560 to 563. There are no updated bibliographic references that support any studies of carbon emissions. Authors must insert in the bibliographic review to be redone or removed from the title and specific objects of the presented study.
Response 20: After reviewing more literature and carefully updating bibliographic references, some new bibliographic references about carbon emissions have been added to support the study. Please see lines 33-70 on page 2, and lines 127-237 on page 3-5 of this revised manuscript for main improvements.
Point 21: Item 6. Conclusion. The conclusions are compromised by the bibliographic study being outdated and without proper references on current studies of carbon emissions, especially in Beijing. Readjust after changes.
Response 21: As mentioned above, we have carefully reviewed the literature, added some new literature about carbon emissions, especially in Beijing, and rewritten the literature review to state the research gaps in a more detailed and clearer manner. Meanwhile, the conclusion of this paper has been rewritten with a more in-depth discussion of the main findings, policy implications, and contributions of this paper. Please see pages 3-5, and pages 20-21 of this revised manuscript.
We truly appreciate your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions, which help us greatly improve the quality of this paper in various aspects. We hope that our revision has properly addressed your concerns. We sincerely thank you for the chance you give us and the time you put into this paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
1. I consider that the topic is actual and scientifically interesting. I found that the paper develops a novel strategic analysis framework of logistics centre location based on multi-criteria decision and urban freight mobility to measure the efficiency of logistics centre location from four aspects: travel time, transport cost, carbon emission and the effects on road traffic.
2. I would recommend to emphasize more in the abstract the relevance, originality and quality of the research, persuasively suggesting to the potential reader the items of interest that the work proposes.
3. We found that in the introductory section the statements made by the authors are supported by solid arguments. I recommend that at the end of the introductory part, in Section 1, you present the structure of the subsequent paragraphs of the paper.
4. The concluding elements of the paper are represented by strong statements based on scientific arguments that are presented clearly and concisely. However, I believe that the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part. In my opinion, solid arguments on the conclusions of the paper will open new research directions and lead to the deepening of the issues studied by potential readers.
5. We found that bibliographic references (in total of 41) are described accurately, honestly and deontologically by the authors.
6. I recommend the authors to present in a more promising manner the future research opportunities which are considered to be feasible and scientifically fertile in the field.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your encouragement and constructive comments on the paper “Evaluating the effects of logistics centre location: An analytical framework for sustainable urban logistics” with Manuscript sustainability-2128520. We have carefully thought over all of your suggestions and seriously improved this paper to our best. In the following, we provide our point-to-point responses to your comments. We present your suggestions in black and our answers in Red.
Point 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response 1: This paper has been carefully rewritten to remove the grammatical errors. And then, an English Language expert in this study field was invited to improve the language of this paper.
Point 2: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved
Response 2: Many thanks for your constructive advice. We have improved the results and discussion in Section 5 and rewritten the conclusion in Section 6 of this revised manuscript. And also, some latest literature has been added to support the discussion of the main findings in these two Sections. Please see pages 14-21 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 3: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Can be improved
Response 3: Following your instruction, Section 5 results and discussion have been rewritten to eliminate ambiguity. Please see pages 14-20 of the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Is the article adequately referenced? Must be improved
Response 4: Thank you for giving us useful comments. According to your suggestion, we have expanded the bibliographic review, after reading dozens of latest literature related to this study. After that, 42 new pieces of literature have been added to the literature review in Section 2 of this revised manuscript. Please see pages 3-5 of the revision.
Point 5: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Can be improved
Response 5: Following your instruction, we have reviewed the latest literature closely related to this paper again and updated Section 2 Literature review. Meanwhile, the conclusion of this paper has been rewritten with a more in-depth discussion of the main findings and policy implications. Please see pages 3-5, and pages 20-21 of the revised manuscript.
Point 6: I would recommend to emphasize more in the abstract the relevance, originality and quality of the research, persuasively suggesting to the potential reader the items of interest that the work proposes.
Response 6: The abstract section has been carefully rewritten to give greater emphasis to the relevance, originality and quality of the research. Please see page 1 of the revised manuscript.
Point 7: We found that in the introductory section the statements made by the authors are supported by solid arguments. I recommend that at the end of the introductory part, in Section 1, you present the structure of the subsequent paragraphs of the paper.
Response 7: Thank you for your encouragement. The organization of the remainder of the paper has been added to the end of Section 1 Introduction. Please see lines 120-124 on pages 3 of the revised manuscript.
Point 8: The concluding elements of the paper are represented by strong statements based on scientific arguments that are presented clearly and concisely. However, I believe that the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part. In my opinion, solid arguments on the conclusions of the paper will open new research directions and lead to the deepening of the issues studied by potential readers.
Response 8: We truly appreciate your constructive comments, which have greatly improved this paper. Following your instruction, we have rewritten the third paragraph of Section 1 Introduction to describe more clearly the research questions of this paper. Meanwhile, the conclusion of this paper has been rewritten to answer these questions with a more in-depth discussion of the main results. Please see lines 98-103 on page 3, and lines 737-776 on pages 20-21 of the revised manuscript.
Point 9: I recommend the authors to present in a more promising manner the future research opportunities which are considered to be feasible and scientifically fertile in the field.
Response 9: The paragraph about future research direction at the end of the conclusion part has been rewritten with a more in-depth discussion, in which two new future research directions also have been added. Please see lines 782-792 on page 21 of the revised manuscript.
We truly appreciate your insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions, which help us greatly improve the quality of this paper in various aspects. We hope that our revision has properly addressed your concerns. We sincerely thank you for the chance you give us and the time you put into this paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The language of the paper has improved greatly, but it still needs work. For example, this sentence from the abstract: General lacking is a rigorous analytical tool for thoroughly understanding the effects of logistics center location on different parts of (economic, environmental and social) sustainability objectives and the conflicting level among them. First, 'General' should be "Generally". Second, the analytical tool is designed to help understand how logistics center location affects sustainability throughout the supply chain. A poor location can keep a firm or a supply chain from reaching its economic, environmental, and social sustainability goals. A good location can help meet these goals.
As is stands, the sentence is awkward and difficult to follow. If it's broken up as shown, it makes more sense in English.
Let's take another example from further into the paper, one of the passages highlighted as revised, lines 126-128: The impacts have been a hot point of discussion in the recent decade as a basis for policy-making decisions. Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010)[23] first identified that the outward migration in Paris is problematic and proposed that stimulating building design suited to integrating logistics services may be useful for reducing its negative externalities.
Better: For the last decade, policy decisions have been based on discussions of these effects. For example, Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010)[23] first identified outward migration in Paris as problematic. They proposed building designs that integrate logistics services to reduce negative externalities.
However, Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010) don't discuss migrations, which would imply people. They discuss the outbound shipments of packages, not outward migration, a word choice that suggests human movement.
These aspects of language usage need repair before the paper is ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your new insightful comments on the paper “Evaluating the effects of logistics center location: An analytical framework for sustainable urban logistics” with Manuscript sustainability-2128520. Your thoughtful suggestions not only help us greatly improve the quality of this paper, but let us gain more knowledge of correctly writing a scientific article and the English language. Following your instruction, we have seriously improved this paper to our best. Our responses to your comments are shown in the following. Again, we present your suggestions in black and our answers in Red.
Point 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved.
Response 1: According to your suggestions, we have reorganized the literature to make it closely related to the research questions of this paper. The literature review in Section 2 has also been rewritten to make the research gaps in the existing literature clearer. Meanwhile, the content related to the theoretical background in the introduction has also been improved again to highlight the contribution of this paper. Please see lines 75 - 94 on page 2, lines 102-114 on page 3, and lines 125-174 on pages 3-4 of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved.
Response 2: As mentioned above, we have refined the literature review and the introduction, and specifically pointed out that the main contribution of this paper is that a novel analytical framework is proposed to evaluate the effects of logistics center location from the perspective of sustainable urban logistics. Then, according to the refined main contribution of this paper, the results and discussion in Section 5 have been carefully improved to show the in-depth insights observed from Beijing’s case study and confirm the applicability of the proposed framework. The conclusion in Section 6 has also been rewritten to reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part. Please see pages 14-22 of the revised manuscript for details.
Point 3: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Must be improved
Response 3: We are sorry that the unclear presentation in the result analysis and discussion causes confusion. Following your instruction, the results and discussion in Section 5 have been improved to explain the effects of different logistics center location on travel time, transport costs, carbon emissions, and the effects of freight traffic flows based on the spatial distribution of logistics centers on road traffic. Please see lines 549-569 on page 14, lines 576-580 on page 15, lines 616-635 on page 17, and lines 671-722 on pages 19-20 of the revised manuscript for main amendments. In addition, may I have missed anything for further improvement, please point it out more specifically. Thank you.
Point 4: are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Can be improved
Response 5: Following your instruction, the literature review has been refined to clearly present the study gaps in the existing literature. After that, we have improved the conclusion of this paper based on the refining drawbacks of the existing literature and the specific managing insights acquired from analysis results. In particular, the first paragraph of the conclusion in Section 6 has been rewritten. Please see pages 19-20 of the revised manuscript.
Point 6: The language of the paper has improved greatly, but it still needs work. For example, this sentence from the abstract: General lacking is a rigorous analytical tool for thoroughly understanding the effects of logistics center location on different parts of (economic, environmental and social) sustainability objectives and the conflicting level among them. First, 'General' should be "Generally". Second, the analytical tool is designed to help understand how logistics center location affects sustainability throughout the supply chain. A poor location can keep a firm or a supply chain from reaching its economic, environmental, and social sustainability goals. A good location can help meet these goals.
As is stands, the sentence is awkward and difficult to follow. If it's broken up as shown, it makes more sense in English.
Let's take another example from further into the paper, one of the passages highlighted as revised, lines 126-128: The impacts have been a hot point of discussion in the recent decade as a basis for policy-making decisions. Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010)[23] first identified that the outward migration in Paris is problematic and proposed that stimulating building design suited to integrating logistics services may be useful for reducing its negative externalities.
Better: For the last decade, policy decisions have been based on discussions of these effects. For example, Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010)[23] first identified outward migration in Paris as problematic. They proposed building designs that integrate logistics services to reduce negative externalities.
However, Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010) don't discuss migrations, which would imply people. They discuss the outbound shipments of packages, not outward migration, a word choice that suggests human movement.
These aspects of language usage need repair before the paper is ready for publication.
Response 6: Thank you for encouraging our work and giving us such specific suggestions. Your examples give us a better understanding of the sentence structure and word choice of the English Language. It definitely benefits us a lot in the aspects of both improving the language of this paper and gaining new knowledge of the English Language. According to your instruction, we have carefully improved the language of this paper to our best. The main revisions in the manuscript have been marked up by “Track Changes” for easy viewing. Please see the markups in the revised manuscript for details.
We sincerely thank you for the time you put into this paper. We hope that our revision has properly addressed your concerns.
Wish you have a good day!
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy with the revised version of the manuscript. Well done.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your encouragement and the time you put into this paper again.
We have carefully checked and seriously improved the English language and style of this paper to our best. Please see the markups of the revised manuscript for the main amendments.
Wish you have a nice day!
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for making the requested revisions, the article is much better.
As a final improvement, I advise authors to use the method used to review the literature and reduce the paragraphs to a maximum of 6 to 10 lines in order to facilitate reading, as long paragraphs discourage reading. Congratulations on the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your encouragement and helpful comments. We have carefully checked all long paragraphs of this paper and made them to a maximum of 6 to 10 lines. Please see pages 1-4， 6-8 and 18-20 of the revised manuscript for main amendments.
We sincerely appreciate the time you put into this paper again.
Wish you have a nice day!
