Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

I would like to thank the Authors for improving the article. However, there are still some issues that need to be taken into consideration before the paper is ready for publication. While the manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the application of cross-docking (C-D) strategies in emerging European markets, integrating sustainability, cost reduction, and artificial intelligence (AI) frameworks and the research is well-structured and provides some empirical insights, however, minor revisions are recommended to enhance clarity, theoretical grounding, and alignment with recent literature.

Comments and Suggestions for Revision

The introduction and literature review could benefit from incorporating recent works by Edoardo Marcucci on sustainable logistics and urban freight transport which represents a relevant segment of the supply chain (e.g., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., & Le Pira, M. (2021). Sustainable Urban Freight Transport: A Review of Planning and Interventions. Transport Reviews, 41(3), 374-399) since this would provide additional context on how C-D aligns with broader urban sustainability goals. Additionally additional clarifications of the research gaps would improve the added value the paper provides by explicitly linking them to emerging market challenges (e.g., regulatory heterogeneity, infrastructure deficits).

While the methodological section has improved I suggest proposing also a counterfactual analysis to strengthen the manuscript by acknowledging potential biases (e.g., scenario selection) and how they were/can be mitigated.

As it is for results and discussion, I appreciate the highlighting of the Policy Implications and the findings on Budapest’s cost advantages seem compelling. However, I also suggest relating them to a broader perspective for a wide and encompassing policy framework such as the one that Marcucci, E., et al. (2023). Policy Mixes for Sustainable Logistics: Evidence from European Case Studies. Transport Policy, 132, 1-15 provide. This would help leveraging the intrinsic value of the paper and bridging the empirical results to actionable recommendations for policymakers.

As it is for Conclusions I suggest also including and exploring the role of public-private partnerships in C-D scalability, by citing for instance Marcucci, E., & Danielis, R. (2020). The Role of Stakeholders in Sustainable Freight Transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 37, 100575 that would help expand the practical relevance of the conclusions reached in the paper.

In conclusion, while appreciating the effort the Authors have made, I still think there is one last step to take so to make this manuscript a valuable contribution to sustainable logistics literature. With the suggested revisions I expect the paper to achieve the needed theoretical and practical impact that a paper published in this Journal should always have.

I recommend minor revisions prior to publication.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing the earlier comments. While your revised manuscript is overall strong and nearly ready for publication, I would recommend the following minor revisions to enhance impact and clarity:

Even after revision, some AI-related explanations still repeat in the literature review and discussion (e.g., benefits of AI on logistics efficiency, automation, cost reduction). Consolidate AI benefits into one well-structured paragraph. Use subheadings like AI in Routing, AI in Warehouse Automation, etc., to avoid rephrasing the same concept in multiple places.

While CSR and ESG frameworks are conceptually well-integrated, their measurable impact on logistics costs remains somewhat abstract. Add one or two concrete examples or data points where ESG/CSR decisions affected KPIs (e.g., energy use, labor efficiency, CO₂ reduction).

The manuscript mentions some limitations indirectly, but it would benefit from a brief, explicit paragraph outlining reliance on modeled scenarios rather than real-world company data, potential biases in assumptions (e.g., €1.60/km cost, fuel adjustment factor), regional generalizability (focused on ECE). You can add a subsection titled “Limitations and Future Research” at the end of the discussion or conclusion.

Some figures and tables (e.g., Figures 2, 3; Tables 1–10) would benefit from consistent units and decimal formatting, clearly labeled titles and subtitles, and brief captions explaining what they show. Ensure all tables use the same format for currency and weight and add units directly in headers where possible.

The current abstract is strong, but it's a bit dense and could better emphasize specific cost savings by location, policy relevance, contribution to theory. In the final lines, explicitly state one or two novel theoretical contributions or tools developed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was rejected in the first round. Now, after modifications implemented by the authors, it is being resubmitted. Even though the authors have made important improvements, the article is still not in a position to be accepted for publication. 
The main problem is not the content of the article but the way it is presented. I strongly recommend hiring a proofreader who can produce the article as top journals usually require.

The problems are as follows. 
The article is excessively long. It is over 30 pages when the content could be presented in, perhaps, 20. 
The article is wordy. There are repeated passages; there are too many explanations of relatively well-known concepts, and the paragraphs are excessively long and make reading tiring. As it is, there is a chance that the reader will abandon the article halfway through. 
The article uses reference clusters ([16,17,20,21,31]; [8,19-22,26,31,32]; [9,20,21,24,28,29]), which is difficult to accept in scientific arguments.
Figure 1 provides little information. It would be better to adopt the form of a linear flowchart.
Equations should be referred to in the text by their sequential number. Table 1 is not intuitive. It might be interesting to replace it with an oriented and weighted graph. 
Tables 2 to 5 are confusing and verbose. It might be interesting to summarize them all in just one, limiting the information. The distances between cities and costs are reported more than once, unnecessarily. For example, the distance and cost between Barcelona and Lyon (639 km; 1,023 euros) are reported four times. Imagine, for example, a table in which the first line would contain the route Barcelona-Lyon-Turin-Prague (Bratislava; Budapest) with costs and total mileage, not partial, only once, and so on. Additionally, you should move the data to the appendix, dealing only with the part of the information that is of interest in the body of the article. 
Since costs and mileage are deterministic, I see no need for section 3.3. Statistical Validation of Cost-Savings. 
Tables 15 and 16 do not provide information on the source of the data. 
I did not capture the relationship between the use of machine-learning algorithms for forecasting (line 981) and the objective of the article. It is necessary to clarify. Perhaps it would be better to delete this part. The statements in this paragraph require empirical references to support them. 
What is the basis for the construction of Table 17? Were practitioners interviewed? The authors' opinion alone (lines 838-9) is not enough in a scientific construction; there must be field evidence. 
35 references is a low number for an article to be published in a top journal. 
However, the biggest problem is the article's structure. I suggest using the classic scheme that top journals employ: 
1. Introduction 
2. Literature review 
3. Research methodology 
4. Results 
5. Discussion 
6. Conclusion.
In addition, the introduction should be completely reformed. The structure of an introduction should begin with the motivation for the study (why the study is important). It should follow with the theoretical derivation of a research gap based on a search in SCOPUS that shows that there is a gap in knowledge that the article will bridge. There follows one and only one research question (yours is something like: is the use of CD advantageous for transport between Eastern European countries?). In your approach, you should also consider the increased cost that a cross-dock operation entails due to the greater coordination requirement. It is a trade-off that may or may not be advantageous. Subsidiary issues should be treated as secondary or specific objectives that will support the pursuit of the main objective. The author should then state the purpose of the article, the methodology used (in this case, quantitative modeling), the expected novelty, and only then, at the end of the introduction, describe the structure of the article. 
Good luck in continuing your work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

requires a total proofreading

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the material, and it can now be considered for publication. Small issues persist: The first two paragraphs of the introduction require references, as they contain many falsifiable statements.

Equations must be mentioned by the number in the text.

Section two and the discussion are still wordy: too many words to state little content. I believe you may reduce both by about 25% to 30%. The article is still too large. Please remind that the audience's attention is volatile. Few readers are prone to dedicating too much time to reading. Smart reading may lead to more citations, which is the ultimate goal of a scientific study: to be useful to others.

BR

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting. The process of optimizing logistics networks is underway all over the world. It is important to ensure the ability of Eastern European countries to effectively participate in global commerce. The development of this area will increase the sustainability of business.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very basic with extremely limited contribution the current staus of scientific knowledge on the subject. Notwistandign the efforts made I suggest rejecting the paper for publication since I do not see any viable oprion to bring the paper to a publishable standar except by completely rethinking adn re writing it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a significant gap in the literature concerning cross-docking in emerging markets. The mixed-method approach is appropriate for analyzing logistics cost reduction. The selection of three cross-docking locations is well justified. The integration of AI and sustainability frameworks adds depth to the analysis.

However:

The introduction could benefit from a more explicit statement of contributions to the field.

The literature review contextualizes the study effectively. The review can be expanded to include more recent studies on sustainable logistics.

The selection of only 33 references may limit the comprehensiveness of the literature review.

The paper follows a logical structure with a clear problem statement and well-defined research questions. The utilization of figures and tables enhances readability. However, some sections, such as the discussion of AI applications, are repetitive and could be more concise. Reduce redundancy in AI discussion and provide empirical validation.

The discussion of AI’s impact on logistics is broad and empirical validation of AI models in cross-docking is limited.

The statistical analysis could be strengthened by including more robustness tests.

Enhance statistical validation with additional tests such as regression analysis.

The comparison between direct delivery and cross-docking lacks sensitivity analysis for varying economic conditions.

While the CSR and ESG frameworks are integrated, their direct quantitative impact on cost efficiency is not well established.

Clarify the methodology for cost estimation and sensitivity to economic changes.

The assumptions regarding transportation costs should be discussed in the context of market fluctuations.

The study is relevant to logistics professionals, policymakers, and sustainability researchers. The integration of AI, ESG, and ABC in the context of emerging European markets is innovative. The findings offer guidance for optimizing cross-docking strategies, but further validation with real-world case studies would strengthen applicability.

Strengthen the conclusion with clear policy recommendations. The conclusions should emphasize actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article appears to have already been reviewed, meaning that we would be in the third round of review, so the room for maneuver is much smaller.

Although the topic is important and the research has relevant content, the article has a problem that is difficult to solve. My suggestion is to withdraw the article, rewrite it, and submit it again. I do not believe it will be possible to make the changes in the time that is usually accepted for a major review, around ten days.

The article is too long (> 19,000 words), too slow, and the reading is tedious, since many themes are repeated. Furthermore, the use of bullets and lists makes the reasoning fragmented and more difficult to understand.

My suggestion is to reduce the size of the article by at least 40-50% (< 10,000 words), rewriting the significant parts and removing duplications. Then, redistribute the chapters into: (1) Introduction; (2) Literature review; (2.1) Comparison with related studies; (3) Research methodology; (4) Study results (4.1) Statistical analysis; (5) Discussion of results; (5.1) Analysis of results; (5.2) Comparison with literature; (5.3) Implications of results; (5.4) Limitations and delimitations of the study and results; (5) Final concerns and future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

totally rewrite

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx