Supply Chain Performance with a Downside-Risk-Averse Retailer and Strategic Customers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Supply Chain Performance with a Downside-Risk-Averse Retailer and Strategic Customers
Abstract: In this part of the paper some sentences aren’t clear, and the text needs an English review. The first sentence needs a conclusion (consider this/ conclude that). As an example: “Moreover, there exists a WPC that can ensure the supply chain profit maximization.” Besides, the method applied to support the analysis isn’t presented, though it is necessary to understand how the authors reached the main objective/ answer the research question. All abbreviations confuse the reader, maybe authors could avoid them, at least, in this part of the text. The aim of the paper isn’t clear.
Introduction: The text doesn’t offer support for the three questions. It’s not clear the connection between them. The third one needs a review: “When can the decentralized SC profit exceed the centralized case? How can SC con-56 tracts be constructed to optimize the SC profit?” After the questions, the authors mention the model. What is it? What kind of technique/model/theory or authors they’ll apply/use to analyze? I didn't understand this sentence “In addition, we can also construct some modified WPCs which can Pareto dominate (denominate?) the WPC.” Is ‘pareto’ an economist Vilfredo Pareto? He was an economist and political scientist. As I am concerned, he doesn’t study or published anything about WPC. According to the abstract, the WPC is “the wholesale price contract (abbr. WPC)”. What is the relationship between “Pareto” and WPC? Who is this ‘Pareto’? Is there another theory for WPC related to a mathematical model and with another ‘Pareto’? The authors should present the model by citing the source(s). The section presents many relationships between the abbreviations and conditions that aren’t clear.
Literature review: Again, in the literature review, the authors declare that there are two major analytic streams related to their paper. This kind of information has to be in the Abstract text. Although the Abstract needs a re-write and the Introduction demands an English review, this section begins presenting the paper's aim and how the authors will reach it. From line 135 to line 144, the authors presented the difference between their work of Gan et al. (2005). This is fundamental but could be in the Introduction section, at its end after a clear paragraph about the contribution of the paper. This contribution has its source from lines 145 to 148 but needs some sources for each note (studies on the DRA retailer that ignore SCB; studies about the effects of SCB and the DR simultaneously). The presentation of Table 1 could be transferred from lines 126/127 to 149, before it. After that, an explanation (from 5 to 8 lines) about what is the content of the model that will be present would support the discussion before.
Method: In 3.1, the sentence “Consider a DRA retailer’s two-phase selling model with SCB” could be “Considering... “. Even Maths and quantitative models demand a well-written text to be clear and valued (used and cited) by the readers. To improve the value of this work and its model, the authors should present it before, and for what kind of data analysis they’ll apply it and what results they intend to show (based on the 3 questions in the Introduction). They have to be connected. It’s not clear what customers and retailers will be studied in this section, where they have to be defined and what research method will be used (multiple case studies or survey?), the sample characteristic, what is the population, etc. Or it is just a theoretical model? Another doubt is: in the Literature review section the authors present the constructs, and the differences between their work and Gan et al. (2005), but they didn’t mention the centralized and decentralized supply chain as in the Abstract and in section 4 (next).
Results (section 4): For me, this section could be a part of section 3, considering that it has more propositions. I didn’t find an analysis for decentralized SC in this section, though a small conclusion is presented in the Abstract. When a paper has propositions, it has to test them and present the results. I didn’t see them here.
Conclusion: From lines 609 to 611 there is a conclusion about centralized and decentralized that I didn’t see in the text. This work is a seminal work, the authors should add in the conclusion section a necessity of a case study with some retailers and a homogeneous group of customers to compare the results from theory to the field. It’ll be very interesting work joining qualitative work with the quantitative model.
References: The references are from journals with high impact and where we can find qualitative and quantitative content in a high level of discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the fact that this manuscript is the first work in the series, it is good to quantify the results obtained.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. In this version, we have polished our manuscript carefully and corrected the grammatical and typos found in our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract: Make the objective of the study evident. Briefly point out the method used. Bring the main results of the study.
Introduction: There is a good contextualization of the problem. It presents the research questions, but does not make clear the purpose of the study. Highlight the gap in the study. What sets this work apart from others?
Literature Review: Fully complies. Use up-to-date references.
Check the possibility of reducing the formulas presented in section 3, in the model configuration. Could you leave the formulas as an attachment. With this, the reading of the text will flow better.
Conclusions: Bring the research questions presented in the introduction and the objective of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
