Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Coordination decision-making for intelligent transformation of logistics services under capital constraint.  The paper deals with a very interesting problem.

·        The paper is well written.

·        Research questions are properly defined.

·        Paper contributions are clear (line 94)

·        In the literature review section research gap must be identified and explicitly mentioned.

·        Clearly state your unique research contributions (practical and theoretical) in the conclusion section.

·        Results must be compared and linked with previous (similar) researches in the literature.

 

·        Limitations and future research directions are well described.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the article according to your comment, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The background, purpose, novelty, academic contribution, literature review, model, analysis results and discussion, and future research directions of the study are all well written and the paper is worthy of publication.

In addition to improving the appearance of the paper by adding the full name of LSP and correcting some spelling errors, readers would understand the paper better if the readability of chapters 3 and 4 could be improved (e.g., by turning Proof and tables into appendix or supplementary materials), if possible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the article according to your comment, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper was presented to be published in the Special Issue Green Supply Chain: Business Process and Logistics Management, but the proposal of the authors does not cover any issue referred to the green supply chain. In fact, the study assumes that "the members of the supply chain are rational, and only consider the maximization of their own monetary benefits in the decision-making process".  It is the main reason for my rejection. 

On the other hand, the paper is hard to follow. The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar. Also, the explanation of the proposed models should be improved. For clarity to the reader, all parameters and variables used in the models should be summarized in a Table of Notation. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the article according to your comment, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper outlines a supply chain for logistics services with a financially limited provider and a well-funded integrator. It explores how the integrator offers incentive contracts and coordination solutions to facilitate intelligent transformations. The subject of the paper is interesting. However, it is not clearly linked to the aims and scope of the Journal. Some major elements of the paper are missing. The paper should be written better. More detailed comments are provided below.

1.     The abstract significantly exceeds the limited number of words. Try to reduce it. The discussion of results in the abstract should be reduced. On the other hand, the background is almost non-existent and there are no major conclusions indicated. Please keep in mind the four main parts of the abstract (background, methods, results, and conclusions). The authors could also indicate the main contributions of their paper.

2.     The connection between the paper subject and the aims and scope of the Journal should be highlighted in the Introduction, discussion, and conclusion. The authors should address three main sustainability pillars (economic, environmental, and social), or at least one of them.

3.     The notation is not complete. Some symbols used in the equations are not explained (e.g. c*).

4.     The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research, when compared with the existing and studied literature. The paper provides some managerial (practical) implications, but there are no theoretical implications. Who can use the results of this study in academic circles and for what?

5.     I do not see any meaningful future research directions. There should be at least 3-5 solid future research directions that would be interesting to most of the Journal readership.

6.     English writing should be significantly improved. There are multiple spelling, grammar, syntax, and style errors. Native English speaker proofreading is strongly suggested.

7.     There are certain technical errors:

a)     It is uncommon to have sub-headings without any text between them (e.g. between sub-heading 3.2 and sub-heading 3.2.1). There should be at least a couple of sentences between them as the introduction to the following.

b)    There are different fonts in some parts of the paper (e.g. lines 490-491).

c)     If tables are in the appendix they should be numbered B1, B2, etc.

d)    There are missing spaces in some places (e.g. “…goal[3]…”). Check the entire paper.

e)     Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper. For example, “RFID” is not defined in the main text. Check the rest of the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the article according to your comment, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the authors now mention in the Introduction Section how their proposal could be related to the green supply chain, the proposed model does not incorporate any sustainability indicator. Moreover, the paper does not present or discuss any results related to green and sustainable management of the supply chain.

On the other hand, the language revisions have not been enough. The manuscript still has sentences like:

·         “When the LSP faces capital constraint, she needs to borrow from banks at the interest rate r, and the loan amount is L“.

·         Since the LSP is constrained by capital, she needs to borrow an amount of 2 ( ( ) / 2) C L c a bp ky gy r = − + − from the bank to realize the intelligent transformation.

·         Corollary 2. In the process of intelligent transformation under capital constraint, if the LSI adopts cost-sharing contract, she cannot achieve supply chain coordination because she cannot meet the constraint.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the article according to your comment, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues from the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded to all my concerns. I'm not sure yet if the thematic of the paper is related to some subject of sustainability and sustainable development. Hence, I leave in the hands of Editor the final decision of accept or not the paper for publication in an Special Issue about Green Supply Chain.