Quality and Pricing Decisions in a Dual-Channel Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Imperfect Product Recycling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article “Quality and Pricing Decisions in a Dual-Channel Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Imperfect Product Recycling”（sustainability-3020838）investigates the significance of revenue sharing contract for coordination by considering both consumer demand and imperfect product recovery in a dual-channel closed-loop supply chain, using quality level as a decision variable. The article is a novel topic from the actual status quo. However, the article still has some shortcomings as follows:

1. Introduction

Argument “……many enterprises not only recycle the waste products, but also the imperfect products” and case “Huawei has established a set of free electronic waste recycling mechanism” is not sufficient to support the argument, please add the corresponding actual case exactly.

Some of the arguments lacked a practical or theoretical basis. For example, “When purchasing electronic products,……but also pay attention to the quality” and “The emergence of the dual-channel structure is beneficial to both manufacturers and retailers……”.

It is recommended to highlight the research questions and innovations of the article.

2. Literature review

The article only reviews the existing literature and does not mention and highlight the innovations of the article.

3. Model and assumptions

The model description is unclear and the subscripts are confusing.   

Are the recovered low-quality products repaired and put directly into the second-hand market or returned to the consumer? The authors do not explain that this would have a direct impact on the correctness of the profit function.

In the demand function, online and offline channels compete on price, and it is assumed that the price sensitivity coefficient of one channel is more important than that of the other channel, which contradicts “Consumers who originally preferred to offline may switch to online channels due to more favorable sales prices” mentioned in the introduction.

Could the authors please explain in detail how and why tolerance, low quality affects the recycling rate of imperfect products, and the construction of the recycling rate of waste/used products, and what is the recycling effort? “e” denote? In addition, please provide correct and accurate theoretical or practical justification.

4. Numerical analysis and managerial insights

Lack of practical or theoretical basis for parameter assumptions.

Some of the pictures are not clear.

It is recommended that the corresponding management revelations be placed after the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are grammatical and word spelling errors, such as “represents the effective coefficient ϕ1 that the recovery rate is affected by the quality of product” “offfline”.

The language of the article is recommended to be touched up through the appropriate expert or organization.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is necessary to give a clearer definition of the term what a dual-channel closed-loop supply chain is. And indicate the sources where this definition of this term is given. The authors give the following interpretation of this term dual-channel closed-loop supply chain (CLSC). However, in a number of publications another option is also known - Closed-Loop Dual-Channel Supply Chain (CLDSC). And the Closed-Loop Supply Chain (CLSC) concept is earlier.   Therefore, a more detailed description of this dual-channel closed-loop supply chain concept should be given. 

2. The authors should also structure their conclusions in more detail and strictly. Be more clear about what they found new in their research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting however I have some concerns as follows which can help to improve the quality of the paper and the results.

 

1.     The introduction is weak. The authors should add the main research gaps, discuss the main research questions, and also add a summary of the results.

2.     The literature review lacks recent publications. Please add a few of the recently published articles (2021-2024) to the literature.

3.     The formulas are not well organized in the structure of the paper and sometimes it is difficult to read them (like formulas 3 and 4). Please revise the structure of the paper accordingly.

4.     The manuscript contains typos errors like line 177 (“Offfline”). In line 189 (“reference not found”), etc.  Please revise the paper and correct it carefully.

5.     Please indicate the source of Figure 1. Is it from the authors?

6.     For the formulas inside the text, you should use italic font.

7.     In the numerical example section, the authors provide some numerical examples without concluding any significant results that improve the contribution of the paper. Please revise this section.

8.     The managerial insights are not discussed well. You should connect them to your main findings and analysis (Properties).

9.     The conclusion section lacks the main outputs of your paper. Please add a paragraph to discuss them.

 

Result: According to the above comments, this manuscript needs major revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains typos errors like line 177 (“Offfline”). In line 189 (“reference not found”), etc.  Please revise the paper and correct it carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article “Quality and Pricing Decisions in a Dual-Channel Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Imperfect Product Recycling”（sustainability-3020838）has been basically modified according to the requirements, but there are still some shortcomings:

 

1. Lines55-68 added by the author are research questions, not innovations.

2. Most of the problems with the modeling assumptions mentioned last time were only explained to me accordingly by the authors, but not modified in the text, as follows:

1) Are the recovered low-quality products repaired and put directly into the second-hand market or returned to the consumer? The authors do not explain that this would have a direct impact on the correctness of the profit function.

2) In the demand function, online and offline channels compete on price, and it is assumed that the price sensitivity coefficient of one channel is more important than that of the other channel, which contradicts “Consumers who originally preferred to offline may switch to online channels due to more favorable sales prices” mentioned in the introduction.

3) Could the authors please explain in detail how and why tolerance, low quality affects the recycling rate of imperfect products, and the construction of the recycling rate of waste/used products, and what is the recycling effort? “e” denote? In addition, please provide correct and accurate theoretical or practical justification.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Comments 1: 1. Lines55-68 added by the author are research questions, not innovations.

Response 1: Agree. We added the innovation of this study in this section, specifically in lines 64-73.

Comments 2: 2. Most of the problems with the modeling assumptions mentioned last time were only explained to me accordingly by the authors, but not modified in the text, as follows: 1) Are the recovered low-quality products repaired and put directly into the second-hand market or returned to the consumer? The authors do not explain that this would have a direct impact on the correctness of the profit function. 2) In the demand function, online and offline channels compete on price, and it is assumed that the price sensitivity coefficient of one channel is more important than that of the other channel, which contradicts “Consumers who originally preferred to offline may switch to online channels due to more favorable sales prices” mentioned in the introduction. 3) Could the authors please explain in detail how and why tolerance, low quality affects the recycling rate of imperfect products, and the construction of the recycling rate of waste/used products, and what is the recycling effort? “e” denote? In addition, please provide correct and accurate theoretical or practical justification.

Response 2: Agree. (1)We add in the text the relevant explanation of where imperfect products go after recovery and repair and the impact on profits, in lines 189-191, 236-240. (2) To avoid misunderstanding, we have revised the presentation of channel choice and its influencing factors in lines 48- 50. (3) According to reference, we explain the effect of tolerance, product quality on the recovery rate of imperfect products, in lines 218- 220.Similarly, we refine the explanation of the relationship between the recycling rate of used products and the recycling effort based on our understanding of the references, in lines 227-230.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is revised according to my previous notes.

Congratulations!

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestions and support.