Review Reports - Sustainability-Driven Supplier Selection: Insights from Supplier Life Value and Z-Numbers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

Regarding the submission "Sustainability-Driven Supplier Selection: Insights from Supplier Life Value and Z-Numbers", please find my comments below.

The paper focuses on the strategic selection of suppliers within the supply chain, incorporating sustainable development criteria. It introduces Supplier Life Cycle Value criteria for extended partnerships with suppliers and applies the Hierarchical Best-Worst Method and PRO-METHEE-GAIA approach for supplier ranking and analysis., which can be considered an interesting topic for the research field and appropriate to the scope of the journal, however it is necessary to overcome the following points:

1. The study acknowledges limitations such as constraints on the number of experts and the senior expert's time availability for answering questionnaires. How might such limitations have affected the bias of the study? This needs to be discussed by the authors in the article.

2. The abstract provides a comprehensive overview of the study on sustainability-driven supplier selection. However, a few areas could benefit from clarification and refinement. Consider provide a succinct description of the steps involved in applying HBWM and PROMETHEE-GAIA. In addition, elaborate on the practical implications of these scenarios for companies engaging in sustainable supplier selection. How can these insights inform real-world decision-making?

3. Overall, the introduction lays a solid foundation, but refining of some aspects can enhance the clarity and accessibility of the study for a diverse audience, including those unfamiliar with the specific methodologies employed. Please ensure that key terms such as Z-Numbers, Z-HBWM, and Z-PROMETHEE are defined concisely upon their introduction.

4. The case study section provides a detailed application of the proposed methodology to a real-world scenario. As suggestions for improvement, consider conclude this section with a brief summary of the key findings, highlighting the innovative aspects introduced in the study.

5. The conclusions section effectively summarizes the key findings and implications of the study. However, for further refinement, explicitly acknowledge the limitations mentioned in the study, such as constraints on the number of experts and the senior expert's time availability. Offer insights into how these limitations may impact the generalizability of the study's findings.

6. Moreover, emphasize the practical implications of the observed shifts in supplier rankings resulting from alterations in selected criteria. Highlight how these shifts underscore the importance of carefully chosen criteria in the supplier selection process.

7. Finally, clearly articulate the unique contributions of the study to the existing body of knowledge. Highlight how the proposed approach advances the field of sustainable supply chain management and supplier evaluation methodologies.

From the foregoing, I recommend reconsidering the paper after clarifying these issues.

Sincerely.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided by the esteemed referees for the article titled "Sustainability-Driven Supplier Selection: Insights from Supplier Life Value and Z-Numbers" with Manuscript ID sustainability-2820873. This response document is organized to address each comment raised by the referees individually. To enhance clarity, our responses are presented in blue font, and any modifications made to the original text in line with the referees' comments are highlighted in red font.

We value the insightful input from the reviewers and believe that the revisions made have significantly strengthened the manuscript, aligning it more closely with the standards of excellence expected for publication.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ali RezaHoseini

Ali_RezaHoseini@ind.iust.ac.ir

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a comprehensive overview of various methodologies and their applications in supplier selection, particularly focusing on sustainability and life cycle value criteria. However, there are a few areas that could be improved:

- Clarity and Structure: The article could benefit from a clearer structure to help readers navigate through the different methodologies and approaches discussed. This could involve organizing the content into distinct sections or subheadings.

- Explanation of Methodologies: While the article introduces various decision-making methodologies such as PROMETHEE, DEA, fuzzy logic, and multi-criteria decision-making, it could provide more detailed explanations of these methods to ensure that readers with varying levels of expertise can understand the content.

- Real-World Examples: Incorporating real-world examples or case studies to illustrate the application of the methodologies discussed would enhance the practical relevance of the article.

- Visual Aids: The addition of visual aids such as diagrams or flowcharts to illustrate the steps involved in the different decision-making processes could enhance the clarity of the content.

- Discussion of Limitations: While the article acknowledges limitations, a more in-depth discussion of the potential challenges or drawbacks associated with the methodologies and approaches would provide a more balanced perspective.

- Future Research Directions: Including a section on potential future research directions and emerging trends in supplier selection methodologies would add value to the article and guide readers toward areas for further exploration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ali RezaHoseini

Ali_RezaHoseini@ind.iust.ac.ir

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors propose a HBWM-PROMETHEE method with Z-Numbers for supplier selection, which has certain theoretical contribution. However, I think some details should be paid more attentions and further improved in this paper. Specific comments are given below.

1. The linguistic quality requires enhancement as some terms used may not be entirely appropriate. For example, the word ‘pioneering’ needs to be used with caution. Additionally, expressions like ‘Mr. Rezaei’ are not in line with the norms of academic language.

2. Further elaboration on the rationale for utilizing Z-Numbers, HBWM, and PROMETHEE is necessary, emphasizing the advantages over other fuzzy numbers, weight determination methods and decision-making methods.

3. The manuscript incorporates numerous symbols, and it is imperative to provide explicit explanations for each symbol's intended meaning. Additionally, for clarity, ensure sequential numbering of formulas. Please check and revise carefully.

4. The overall layout of the paper requires refinement, including the standardization of font sizes. Moreover, meticulous adjustments are needed for several tables within the manuscript.

5. In the ‘case study’, the evaluation values are provided by only one senior expert, which seemed too subjective and not very persuasive.

6. To enhance the robustness of the study, consider incorporating comparative experiments. This could involve presenting ranking results obtained through the proposed method with different fuzzy numbers, exploring the impact of various weight determination methods (such as entropy weight method, AHP) on the outcomes, and comparing ranking results achieved through different decision-making methods (such as TOPSIS, VIKOR). Such additions would contribute to a more comprehensive and insightful analysis.

In my opinion, the content of this manuscript needs to be further adjusted. A major revise is needed before it can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ali RezaHoseini

Ali_RezaHoseini@ind.iust.ac.ir

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear autors,

Given their response and the quality of the modifications made, I recommend the acceptance of the article in its current form for publication.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the issues highlighted in the first version. The paper can be accepted in the current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved accordingly. I have no further comments to contribute.