Urban Joint Distribution Problem Optimization Model from a Low-Carbon Point of View

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the urban joint distribution problem from a low-carbon perspective to reduce carbon emissions. The paper is well composed but before publication the following things should be addressed.

• Add some results/findings in the abstract
• Explain your unique contributions in the introduction, as well as why this method was used to solve the problem
• Add a methodology paragraph at the end of the introduction (what each section consists of)
• The literature review should be separated from the introduction, so section 2 should be the literature review
• Enhance literature review (add more papers)
• Add a figure describing the methodology of the paper
• Add pseudo-code in the paper
• Conduct model validation (compare your results with similar studies)
• Compare your results with other optimization algorithms in order to see how better your results are
• Add the theoretical implications of the model
• Add managerial implications of the model
• Add limitations of the study
• Add future research directions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic—urban joint distribution optimization from a low-carbon perspective. The research proposes an innovative mathematical model integrating delayed distribution strategies and an improved ant colony algorithm, which demonstrates promising results in reducing carbon emissions and operational costs. However, to improve the overall quality of the paper, I offer the following suggestions:

1. Clarify certain equations and variable notations, particularly in Sections 2.4 and 3.2.2, to enhance readability for international readers unfamiliar with the notation system.

2. Strengthen the literature review, especially in areas related to the scoring mechanism and time-series forecasting, by citing more recent and internationally recognized sources.

3.  

   Improve the structure of the empirical validation by summarizing the comparative results more clearly in the main text, and highlight the real-world implications of the findings.

4. Consider having the paper professionally proofread to improve clarity, grammar, and academic tone.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in this manuscript is understandable but requires improvement. There are numerous instances of awkward phrasing, long and complex sentences, and inconsistent terminology. Professional English editing is required to improve clarity, grammar, and academic tone.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    In the abstract part of the paper, there are problems with insufficient logic, such as the transition from "small logistics" to "pollution emission" mentioned at the beginning, and the lack of logical expression in the middle; at the same time, there are problems with too long sentences, which suggest that the sentences should be split to make the meaning of the sentences clearer and more clear.
2.    In the introduction of the paper, first, there is also the problem of one sentence being too long; second, the expression format in the introduction is not uniform. In some places, there is a noticeable space between the punctuation mark "." and the following text, while in other places, there is no space, such as "Businesses" on the third line and "To" on the fourth line.
3.    The first paragraph of the introduction mentions "It is now one of the major sources of carbon emissions." but does not mention what this "It" refers to. It is suggested that a supplementary explanation be made.
4.    The citation format of the references is not uniform. The "[9]" in Article 9 is after the punctuation mark ".", while the superscript in other places is written before the punctuation mark ".". It is suggested to modify and unify it.
5.    The paper only has 19 references, and the number of references is small, among which 18 are concentrated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the introduction. It is suggested to supplement the number of references and expand the scope of references.
6.    The expression of innovation point is vague. Although "delayed delivery" and "rating mechanism" are mentioned, there is no clear comparison with similar methods in the literature (such as dynamic path planning), so the innovation needs to be further quantified.
7.    The research data is not supported. The summary and introduction have always emphasized the seriousness of carbon emissions in the logistics industry, but no specific data have been cited to illustrate the seriousness of carbon emissions in the logistics industry, such as the proportion of global or Chinese logistics carbon emissions.
8.    This study only uses the relevant data of M Company from January 2023 to November 2024. The data range is small and lacks reference value. It is suggested to expand the reference data range.
9.    Figure 2 in the paper is relatively blurred, and some data in the figure overlap, which affects the intuitive expression of the data. It is suggested to increase the clarity of the picture.
10.    The formula number is confused. The expression of "Formula 3-4" mentioned in section 3.1.2 is not consistent with the expression of other formulas such as "Formula (1)-Formula (21)" mentioned in the previous text. Meanwhile, "Formula 3-4" is not mentioned in the paper. It is suggested to modify and unify it.
11.    3.1.3 The part describes the steps of "delayed delivery" in both text and figure 3. It is suggested to simplify it to avoid repeated expression.
12.    In this paper, Manhattan distance is used instead of Euclidean distance, but the error of Manhattan distance in non-grid roads, such as ring road and diagonal main road is not discussed, and how to coordinate the interaction between Manhattan distance and other improvements in the algorithm, such as elite ant strategy, and the simplification of distance calculation are not explained.
13.    The results of the case have certain limitations, and the robustness of the model in extreme scenarios, such as peak demand surge, is not discussed.
14.    The carbon emissions mentioned multiple times in this paper lack references or explanations for the coefficients 0.997 and 1.2 in Equation 2, introducing a certain degree of subjectivity; they do not consider the dynamic impact of grid energy structure, such as the ratio of coal to renewable energy, on the carbon emission factor; nor do they discuss the sensitivity of load fluctuations and speed changes on the carbon emission results. It is recommended to provide explanations for these coefficients and to consider dynamic carbon emission factors based on regional grid data.
15.    The format of reference 10 in the reference section is not consistent with that of other references, and the journal number and page number are missing. It is suggested to unify the format.
16.    The paper contains multiple grammatical errors in English expression, such as the "obtains" in "By deriving the carbon emission formula, we obtains the crucial component..." should be "obtain"; in section 3.2.1, the general fact description "The Ant Colony Algorithm is a heuristic algorithm that mimics the natural foraging activity..." should uniformly use simple present tense, but subsequent steps mix past tense like "The ants discharged the items". It is recommended to check for grammatical and tense issues throughout the text.
17.    The punctuation format in the table is not uniform. In Table 4, "," is used, while in Table 5, "，" is used. It is suggested to revise and unify it.
18.    Overall, this paper has clear objectives, detailed analysis, and appropriate modeling and data selection. It starts with common transportation methods in urban logistics and validates the practical value of the proposed method through data processing. The expression is relatively natural and smooth, easy to understand, making full use of professional knowledge and demonstrating the author's expertise and writing skills. Although there are still some logical and expressive issues, the study contributes to the field of logistics by providing a practical and effective solution to carbon emission problems in urban joint distribution, which is significant for promoting sustainable logistics practices.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author needs to improve his English expression. The article should avoid long sentences as much as possible. Optimize academic expression.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces a method utilizing unit energy consumption to address load change issues, potentially in the context of urban planning or resource allocation. It also discusses an ant colony optimization algorithm, detailing steps such as updating global optimal solutions, iterating through specific processes, and adjusting visibility coefficients for ants' path choices. However, some issues should be addressed as follows.

1. Some terms like "unit energy consumption" and specific steps in the ant colony algorithm could benefit from clearer definitions and explanations to make the paper more accessible to a broader audience.
2. The algorithm's steps should be more thoroughly detailed, including pseudocode or flowcharts to illustrate the process more clearly.
3. A comparison of the proposed method with existing approaches would highlight its novelty and advantages. This section is currently missing from the paper.
4. There are many planning papers of this kind. What are the differences between the focus of this article and the existing main literature? What theoretical gaps have been filled. The author should add a table after the literature review to compare key points.
5. There are many heuristic algorithms, why does this article use ant colony algorithm? Please provide a specific explanation.
6. When annotating literature, the author used two systems: author year and sequential numbering, only one can be used. At the same time, when annotating, only the author's surname needs to be listed, not the author's full name.
7. Are formulas (8) and (9) both TEC? What is the difference?
8. The literature is generally outdated and needs to be supplemented with some recent literature, especially those from 2024-2025.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Everything is ok now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has made comprehensive and effective revisions in response to the comments, and its quality has been significantly improved. In terms of logic and expression, the authors adjusted the abstract and introduction sections, deleting illogical content, splitting long sentences, and standardizing the format, making the article's presentation clearer and more fluent.

The authors also supplemented the reference of "It", thus improving the content. Regarding the references, not only was the format unified, but the number of references also increased from 19 to 37, covering multiple fields, which enhanced the persuasiveness of the research.

The innovative points are expounded more clearly, highlighting the innovation through the introduction of new methods. In terms of data, the proportion of carbon emissions data was supplemented. Although the scope of the company's data is limited, it does not affect the overall research. In addition, issues such as formula numbering, chart clarity, and grammatical errors were also corrected.

Overall, the authors have implemented the reviewers' comments item by item. The quality of the revisions is high, making the paper more professional and rigorous, and it is of great significance for the research and practice of carbon emission issues in urban joint distribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors could improve the English expression of the manuscript appropriately

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscipt has been improved well according to the comments.