Developing a Conceptual Framework Model for Effective Perishable Food Cold-Supply-Chain Management Based on Structured Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments: There are many similarities between the present manuscript and a previously published one, especially in results and the resulted conceptual framework:

Shashi, Cerchione, R., Singh, R., Centobelli, P., & Shabani, A. (2018). Food cold chain management: From a structured literature review to a conceptual framework and research agenda. International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(3), 792-821. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-01-2017-0007.

The review type is not clear; structural or systematic?

If it is a systematic review,

 - Please complete and upload the PRISMA checklist.

- Please rework the abstract based on the PRISMA checklist for abstracts as well.

- Specify the primary source of funding for the review.

- Provide the register name and registration number.

- More than two search engines is usually needed for systematic review.

Minor comments:

Abstract: Please quote the full form of the term (FCC) on first use.

The following sentence is not suitable for abstract results:

“Recent years have seen a meteoric rise in the number of academic studies devoted to this subject. If current trends continue, there will be more studies conducted on this subject in the near future. In addition…”

Key words: Stakeholder can be added to keywords.

Introduction: There are some repeated definition’ e.g.:

“In the context of supply chains (SCs), the term "cold chain" (CC) refers to the set of activities and processes that guarantee proper refrigeration of perishable goods during transport”

Both references in the following sentence are indicated to one references. Moreover, it is not clear that the present review what added to the previous one?

“In fact, this FCC-focused structured literature review supplements the work of Shashi et al. (2018) and Cerchione et al. (2018) rather than replacing them.”

Methods: Most of the references for systematic review stages are not comprehensive guidelines such as PRISMA.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are not specific (e.g. language).

Result section is not clear.

Tables 1 and 2 can be presented as text.

Why the four main themes investigated -factors causing the inefficiency of FCCP, issues relating to FCC sustainability, important measures for measuring FCCP, key methods of improving FCCP- have not been included in the conceptual framework?

Conclusion: According to Sashi et al, this cannot be the only study in the literature that covers virtually every facet of FCC.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for considering our manuscript worthy of revision and giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript titled Developing a conceptual framework model for effective perishable food cold supply chain management based on structured literature review to Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort that you as a reviewer dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Please find the point-to-point response of your valuable comments in the file attached here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abtract: The authors should present their key findings or results.

Methodology: The authors should have an analysis framework to explain their work, to obtain research objective. They should not present review statistic results here. 

Rerults: The authors do not show the section of Result. But they put their findings in the sections of Methodology and Conceptual framework according to the literature. In general, I am not sure about research objectives and findings of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for considering our manuscript worthy of revision and giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript titled Developing a conceptual framework model for effective perishable food cold supply chain management based on structured literature review to Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort that you as a reviewer dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Please find the point-to-point response of your valuable comments in the file attached here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your work. I appreciate your efforts related to the food cold supply chain management field. Please see my comments for further improving your paper. Sincerely yours.

- A figure should be added to present the methodological process. 

- Research opportunities are important outcomes of systematic literature review studies. So, it is highly recommended to report the research opportunities or questions under a separate subsection, after discussing the results. 

- Figure 1 and 2 are prepared over the first search of 1077 articles. This is unnecessary as the analysis is based on 103 articles which are directly relevant to the focus of this study. Tables, figures and all other data and discussions in the paper should be presented based on the selected 103 articles. 

- Tables and figures are not addressed properly throughout the text. E.g. in section 2.4, table number is missing.

- Paragraph in page 6 is separated.

- There should be a table showing the details of the content analysis. In section 2.4, the explanation of content analysis and findings are mixed. Content analysis section should be a separate section, where all details related to the analysis are presented. In this part, tables showing the main and sub-categories of the analysis should also be presented.

- In table 3, another column for showing the research topics discussed in related studies should be added. This is another important data and contribution of the content analysis made in the study. This will also help the reader to understand the topics discussed in each category extracted from the literature review and would also contribute to support the conceptual model as well as the suggestions made for further research.  

- Tables showing the categories and sub-categories of the content analysis should be prepared. 

- The background of figure 3 is confusing. Each relationship in the model should be explained one by one and written underneath the related paragraph for clear understanding of the conceptual model. It is unclear in its current form.

- There are language errors (e.g. use key or main objective rather than chief objective; e.g. a total of 09 additional papers??)

- Please control the abbreviations and make sure that you use the abbreviation at the first time the full word or phrase. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for considering our manuscript worthy of revision and giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript titled Developing a conceptual framework model for effective perishable food cold supply chain management based on structured literature review to Sustainability. We appreciate the time and effort that you as a reviewer dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Please find the point-to-point response of your valuable comments in the file attached here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Checking plagiarism is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time, efforts, suggestions, and comments for improving the quality and readability of this manuscript. We are really thankful to you.

As far as, a plagiarism check is concerned, We assure you that the current manuscript is completely handwritten and has gone through the similarity check. 

Yours sincerely 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved. I have some more comments for the authors:

I think "The limitation of this paper" should be in the Conclusion part, not in abstract.

The authors should seperate literature review results from Section 2 of Research methodology. The literature review result should be a independent section. It is your result, not methodology.

The conceptual framework of FCCM management should be more detailed and illustrated. The current framework looks quite simple/vague and hard to understand and apply.

The table of reviewed papers is too long, it should be more summerised or move it to appendix.

Author Response

Dear sir/Ma'am,

Greetings,

 

Thank you for considering our manuscript worthy of revision and giving us the opportunity to submit 2nd revised version of the manuscript titled Developing a conceptual framework model for effective perishable food cold supply chain management based on structured literature review. We appreciate the time and effort that you as a reviewer dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. Thanks!

Comment 1:The manuscript has been significantly improved. I have some more comments for the authors.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment and for liking our revisions. We are very happy to hear from you that you liked it.

 

Comment 2:I think "The limitation of this paper" should be in the Conclusion part, not in the abstract.

 

Response 2: Thanks. The limitation of this paper has been removed from the abstract and added in the conclusion section as per your comment. Please see the Abstract and Conclusion sections where changes have been made. 

 

Comment 3: The authors should separate literature review results from Section 2 of Research methodology. The literature review result should be an independent section. It is your result, not methodology.

 

Response 3: Thanks for this very important comment and feedback. We have incorporated the literature review results into section 3. The comment has helped us improve the organization and clarity of the paper, making it easier for readers to follow and understand the paper. For tracking the changes, please see sections 2.4 and 3.1 where changes have been made. Thanks once again.

 

Comment 4:The conceptual framework of FCCM management should be more detailed and illustrated. The current framework looks quite simple/vague and hard to understand and apply.

 

Response 4:Thanks for the constructive comment. A more detailed illustration of the framework has been given and it has really enhanced its clarity and applicability. Now, the incorporated points have added beauty to the model and it is easy to understand the relations as shown in it. For tracking the changes, please see sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 where requisite paragraphs have been added as per the comments to make the description more insightful and informative Thanks once again for this valuable comment.

Comment 5: The table of reviewed papers is too long, it should be more summerised or move it to appendix.

 

Response 5: Thanks. It has now been moved to the end as Appendix. Please see the end of the paper for tracking the changes.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your effort for improving your work in line with the comments. As mentioned before, a substantial revision is required in the findings section of the manuscript. You have addressed some; but still, previous comments 3-7-8 -9 are not sufficiently integrated to the content.

Please see the details below:

- It is necessary to list and number the research opportunities at the discussion section of the manuscript, as it is a very important contribution and outcome of systematic literature review studies.

- Table on page 8-11 is a list of the articles reviewed in the systematic study, which are grouped under categories of topics. However, it is necessary to present the data supporting the conceptual figure and discussions. Therefore, the details of these categories (first, second and if necessary, third level codes/topics) should also be explained in this table. Please also see the previous review notes, comment # 8.

- The explanations regarding the figure 4 is still unclear and not sufficient. The paragraph added at the end of the figure does not provide an in-depth understanding of the figure; instead, it contains the category information, which is already mentioned in the figure. The table in pages 8-11 should also be supporting the development of the conceptual model and contribute to the explanations regarding this model.

 

Sincerely yours.

 

 

 

Author Response

 

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

Greetings!

Thank you for considering our manuscript worthy of revision and giving us the opportunity to submit 2nd revised version of the manuscript titled Developing a conceptual framework model for effective perishable food cold supply chain management based on structured literature review. We appreciate the time and effort that you as a reviewer dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

 

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. Thanks!

 

Comment 1:Thanks for your effort for improving your work in line with the comments. As mentioned before, a substantial revision is required in the findings section of the manuscript. You have addressed some; but still, previous comments 3-7-8 -9 are not sufficiently integrated to the content.

 

Response 1: We thank you for your positive comments and are happy to know that our efforts in 1^st revision of the paper have been appreciated by you. We agree with you that there are still concerns (previous comments 3-7-8 -9) which have now been addressed as per your comments and suggestions. For tracking the changes, please see sections 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, the last paragraphs of section 4, and appendix 1. Thanks again for the suggestions. This means a lot for us to improve the quality and readability of this manuscript

 

Comment 2: It is necessary to list and number the research opportunities at the discussion section of the manuscript, as it is a very important contribution and outcome of systematic literature review studies. Additionally, I will make sure that each research opportunity is linked to the specific findings and conclusions of the study, highlighting the potential impact of pursuing these opportunities in the future.

 

Response 2: Thanks. We have now included a clear and concise mention of research opportunities to provide an easily understandable overview. We have also highlighted the potential impact that pursuing these opportunities could have. For tracking the changes, please see the following paragraph in the body of the discussion:

 

As we know that systematic literature reviews are conducted to identify and synthesize existing research on a particular topic, but they are also done to identify gaps in the current knowledge and areas where further research is needed. As far as this paper is concerned, the paper suggests potential avenues for future research such as:

1. Exploring the use of advanced systems and technology to improve the efficiency of logistical processes in the food cold chain.
2. Studying the impact of refrigeration equipment with increased energy efficiency on product volume, quality, and carbon emissions reduction.
3. Examining the benefits of using energy sources with zero carbon emissions for sustainability in the FCC industry.
4. Exploring innovations in the packaging of food products and their impact on distributors and product integrity.
5. Investigating the drivers of customer preference for generic food products and the potential of branded foodstuffs to increase customer satisfaction and loyalty.
6. Exploring the effectiveness of lean manufacturing procedures and implementing recycling practices in improving administrative and stakeholder benefits for firms.
7. Investigating the effectiveness of integrated IT frameworks in addressing FCC problems related to insufficient chain integration, collaboration, sharing of information, shipping precision, and expertise.
8. Identifying strategies to raise awareness among both partners in the chain and consumers about how to handle perishable foodstuffs properly in emerging economies.

Conducting research on the suggested topics could bring about various benefits, such as improving the efficiency of logistical processes in the food cold chain, reducing carbon emissions, and enhancing product integrity. The research could also help identify strategies for sustainability, such as using energy sources with zero carbon emissions and implementing recycling practices. Furthermore, investigating the drivers of customer preference for generic and branded food products could lead to increased customer satisfaction and loyalty. Additionally, exploring the effectiveness of integrated IT frameworks and raising awareness among partners and consumers about proper handling of perishable foodstuffs could address various challenges faced in the FCC industry.

 

Thank you once again!

 

Comment 3:Table on page 8-11 is a list of the articles reviewed in the systematic study, which are grouped under categories of topics. However, it is necessary to present the data supporting the conceptual figure and discussions. Therefore, the details of these categories (first, second and if necessary, third level codes/topics) should also be explained in this table. Please also see the previous review notes, comment # 8.

 

Response 3:Thanks for the comments. We would like to let you know that in addition to your comments and suggestions on Table 3 (Table on pages 8-11), there were also comments and suggestions from another reviewer regarding Table 3 (Table on pages 8-11). As a result, we decided to take a middle path and move the table to the end of the paper as an appendix, while also making the necessary changes throughout the paper. We thank both reviewers for suggesting changes related to this table. Now, we hope that you will like it. For tracking the changes, please visit the appendix section of the paper.

 

Comment 4:The explanations regarding the figure 4 is still unclear and not sufficient. The paragraph added at the end of the figure does not provide an in-depth understanding of the figure; instead, it contains the category information, which is already mentioned in the figure. The table in pages 8-11 should also be supporting the development of the conceptual model and contribute to the explanations regarding this model.

 

Response 4:Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. We have now revised the explanations regarding Figure 4 to provide a more in-depth understanding of the figure. We hope that these revisions, as far as figure 4 and Table 3 are concerned, address your concerns. For tracking the changes, please see the description of figure 4 under section 3. The passages have been added and the modifications have been done as per the valuable comments and suggestions.  Thanks once again.

Thanks!

Yours Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for the changes in the manuscript in line with the comments. Although the paper is well improved, I still suggest you to prepare a different version of Table 3. It lists the reference articles in the current form. However, I expect that this table presents the details of the categories (first, second and if necessary, third level codes/topics) in the conceptual figure.

Hope the comments will help to improve the quality of the work.

Sincerely yours,

Author Response

 

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

 

Thank you for considering our manuscript worthy of revision and giving us the opportunity to submit 3rd revised version of the manuscript titled Developing a conceptual framework model for effective perishable food cold supply chain management based on structured literature review. We appreciate the time and effort that you as a reviewer dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

 

Here is the response to your comment. Thanks!

Comment 1: Thanks for the changes in the manuscript in line with the comments. Although the paper is well improved, I still suggest you to prepare a different version of Table 3. It lists the reference articles in the current form. However, I expect that this table presents the details of the categories (first, second and if necessary, third level codes/topics) in the conceptual figure. Hope the comments will help to improve the quality of the work.

Response 1: We thank you for your positive comments and are happy to have known that our efforts in the revision of the paper have been appreciated by you. We have revised the table-3 as per the comments and suggestions of the reviewer. We are very much thankful for the valuable suggestions. For tracking the change, please see the table as appendix-1.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf