Pricing Decision Models of Manufacturer-Led Dual-Channel Supply Chain with Free-Rider Problem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

My comments has been attached.

Best wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Please review the attachment about the modifications of our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachments.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Please review the attachment about the modifications of our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors!

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled „ Pricing Decision Models of Manufacturer-led Dual Channel Supply Chain with Free-rider Problem". The manuscript addresses an important issue with the connection of multi-level supply chains.

Title: The title of the manuscript is well chosen.

Abstract: The abstract is the weakest part in the entire work. It has very basic and strange English. The content is good, but it needs to be rewritten.

Introduction and literature review: The introduction is adequate; the scientific gap and the motivation can be recognized. But there is a big problem: I couldn't find the definition of “free-riding” in this situation, and only got the basic concept what it means in supply chain after the first 5 pages. Please clarify it in the Introduction.

My personal opinion is that the first half of the literature review is a little short, too crammed in too little space, but it's understandable.

I recommend a Table that collects which parameters are tested by whom and with what effectiveness.

Materials and methods: In my opinion, the methods are well developed and mathematically proven. The number of formulas is a little overwhelming, but they are all correct. Some parameters are left out of Table 2. please add them. Please add a legend to the linegraphs for more transparency.

There are several hypotheses, every one of them has been explained, proved and presented, besides No.7. which is not a hypothesis.

Conclusions: The conclusion is clear, the theorems are proved, and well written. The results are usable for retailers and customers both in a supply chain.

The language is acceptable besides the abstract.

There are a few hard-to-understand sentences, typos and editing errors that I marked in the document.

In my opinion, the article is acceptable with these minor problems fixed.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Please review the attachment about the modifications of our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present version is satisfactory.