Mixed Palletizing for Smart Warehouse Environments: Sustainability Review of Existing Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       It is recommended that Figure 1 be placed after the first quoted paragraph in the text. In the Figure 1, it is recommended to represent the relationships between the four classifications on algorithm-based solutions.

2.       It is recommended to separate the exact and heuristic algorithms, that is, split 2.1 into two subsections.

3.       It is inappropriate to place Figure 2 in the section 3. It is recommended to place it in the section 1 or section 4.

4.       It is recommended to add figure or table to the section 4 to more briefly and clearly display the research gaps and future work in this field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript may be reconsidered after major revisions.

1. L1~15: The abstract needs to be rephrased. The current version is almost all background introduction, which is more suitable in the introduction section. However, the description of the main content presented in this review are insufficient, and the conclusions is missing. 

2. There are too many conceptual terms in the introduction section, while the description of their meaning to the main idea of the review is insufficient. As such, some of them are indeed not suitable to be detailed here.

3. L19~20: Rewrite this sentence. Logically, Industry 4.0 directly changes manufacturing industries, then changes economic life through manufacturing industries, and finally changes society. Additionally, two consecutive “and” are not recommended.

4. L61: It is “all relevant researches”. The claim that “present and review all relevant researches” is too absolute. It is impossible.

5. L95, 101, 116, etc: Passive voice is more suitable.

6. The authors seem to be more inclined to list relevant studies, while neglecting  descriptions of in-depth interrelationships between different studies. Also, the introduction of the significance of each study is also insufficient.

7. The author's division between Algorithm based and Non Algorithm based methods is inappropriate. L296, L310, L315 mention that these methods are algorithm-based. Why classify them as Non-Algorithm-based methods?

8. Fig.2: What do the numbers in this figure represent? The figures and tables in this review are too few and too simple,  presented very limited information.

9. Methods presented in this review are too limited and may not be very representative. Therefore, it is difficult to give readers a clear and comprehensive insight for this field.

10. L364~410: The listed “research gaps” items are too many. Some items may intersect with each other. Some items seem to have actually been sufficiently developed.

11. L411: It is not a conclusion and should be rephrased.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deals with mixed palletizing which is a very common problem in logistics; specially, due to the need for fast automated product movement to satisfy a large number of customers in contexts of distributors of highly personalized goods. In the era Industry 4.0, the paper explores around 200 recent works to expose the state of the art and to identify gaps and opportunities for research from different disciplines, such as mathematical program, artificial intelligence (heuristics, machine learning, etc) , simulation, quantum computing, among others.

 The authors provide a comprehensive and relatively deep coverage of different methods (classic and newer ones) to tackle this complex and practical problem of goods delivery in industry.

 However, it states phrases such as” a sustainable mix palletizing solution that outlines a system that fits for all has not yet been introduced”, without prior definition of what sustainability means in the context of the commercial and/or industrial problem; instead, it describes several methods from the literature taken from different disciplines and approaches, such as I4.0, even I5.0 but with scarce relation to the aims of the journal.

 

The paper needs major revisions to fit the aims and scope of the journal and to present solutions to a pre-defined problem.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made by the authors are roughly satisfactory, therefore the manuscript could be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this second version, the modified abstract shows more clearly the contribution of the research to the sustainability issue. This is further clarified with the information provided in lines 55 to 60.  Also, it highlights shortly how the new technologies are related to the palletizing industrial problem; this is seen in sections 2.4-2.6, 3.1, and 3.2. With these improvements, the article fits much better the aim and scope of the journal.