Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The execution of the research plan and the documentation of the findings seem incomplete. For instance, while the abstract and introduction focus on how the authors want to conduct the study, they did not clearly state the significance of carrying out this research.

2.      In the introduction, for the problem proposed in the paper, the realistic background of this paper is not very clear, this should be giving cases in the text;

3.      Always use units - tables, figures, etc.

4.      Revise the content in section 4 - some text should be stated appendix.

5.      Fresh product items have uncertain demand in real-life conditions and why this subject is not considered in the model ( !!!)

6.      The current version has some grammatical errors, and not having a good flow of information.

7.      In Section 5 (i.e., numerical results), is there any real data? How do you obtain the values of many parameters? How do you derive the data?

8.      Support the literature review with more references from the journal to follow the previous work. (Optimizing decisions of fresh-product members in daily and bourse markets considering the quantity and quality deterioration: A waste-reduction approach, Fresh-product supply chain coordination and waste reduction using a revenue-and-preservation-technology-investment-sharing contract: A real-life case study, Fresh-Product Trade Management Under Government-Backed Incentives: A Case Study of Fresh Flower Market)

 

9.      Please justify whether all fresh products have a homologous deterioration rate/pattern)

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes listed have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response. For more detailed information，please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aimed to develop a mathematical model to investigate the effects of consumers' sensitivity to the freshness of fresh agricultural products, the profit-sharing ratios, and supply chain stakeholders' business negotiating abilities on their profits and freshness preservation efforts.

- Authors would need to better explain the missing gaps in the previous studies and justify the need of this study. What are the factors and variables that are already considered and are not considered in the previous studies?

- While the model considered various factors affecting the relationships between the supply chains, validation of the model is necessary to prove the effectiveness of the proposed model.

 

- There are several grammatical errors in the manuscript: e.g., line 3 pg 1, line 68 pg 2 

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes listed have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response. For more detailed information，please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf