A Framework for Sustainable and Fair Demand-Supply Matchmaking Through Auctioning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Towards Sustainable and Fair Trade: Auctioning-Based Demand-Supply Matchmaking

The paper presents a novel approach to integrating fairness and environmental sustainability into auction systems, which is a timely and relevant topic. The Demand-Supply Matchmaking (DSM) model offers a promising solution to address crucial challenges in modern auction practices. However, the paper needs substantial revisions to improve clarity, organization, and the presentation of results.

·         The introduction needs a clearer articulation of the research gap and the specific contribution of the DSM model. While the paper mentions existing limitations in auction systems, it does not strongly emphasize the unique aspects of the DSM model in addressing these limitations.  

·         A stronger motivation for the research is needed. Why is this research important now? What are the potential impacts of the DSM model on auction practices and related fields?  

·         The paper would benefit from a more concise and focused literature review that directly supports the development and rationale of the DSM model. The current review is somewhat broad and could be streamlined to highlight the most relevant works

·         The description of the DSM model and platform design is overly complex and lacks clarity. The use of multiple terms like "mechanisms," "tools," and "components" creates confusion. A simplified and more streamlined explanation of the model's architecture and functionality is needed.  

·         The paper needs clearer explanations of the algorithms and workflows used in the platform implementation. The current descriptions are difficult to follow, and the use of multiple figures and tables adds to the confusion. A more concise and integrated presentation of the implementation details is needed.  

 

·         The presentation of evaluation scenarios and results needs significant improvement. The paper currently uses multiple tables and charts that are not well-organized or explained. A more concise and focused presentation of key findings is needed, with clearer explanations of the results and their implications.  

·         The paper needs a stronger analysis of the results. What are the key takeaways from each scenario? How do the results support the claims about the DSM model's effectiveness? A more in-depth discussion of the findings and their significance is needed.

·          The discussion section needs to be expanded to include a more critical analysis of the DSM model's limitations and potential challenges. What are the potential drawbacks or unintended consequences of using the DSM model in real-world auction settings?

·          The future work section needs more specific and actionable suggestions. What are the next steps in developing and refining the DSM model? What specific research questions need to be addressed?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction needs a clearer articulation of the research gap and the specific contribution of the DSM model. While the paper mentions existing limitations in auction systems, it does not strongly emphasize the unique aspects of the DSM model in addressing these limitations.  

Response 1: We agree with this comment. The introduction has been revised to better articulate the research gap and emphasize the unique contributions of our work. Our Action is to make changes in paragraph 3 of the introduction to highlight the gap (lines 41 and 42) by clearly stating the research gap and the specific contributions of the DSM model. 

Comments 2: A stronger motivation for the research is needed. Why is this research important now? What are the potential impacts of the DSM model on auction practices and related fields?  

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a paragraph in the introduction to contextualize the importance of this research in addressing current challenges in auction systems and its broader impacts. Our Action can be found in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the introduction, addressing the timeliness and potential impacts of this research. 

Comments 3: The paper would benefit from a more concise and focused literature review that directly supports the development and rationale of the DSM model. The current review is somewhat broad and could be streamlined to highlight the most relevant works.  

Response 3: We appreciate this suggestion. The literature review has been made more concise by connecting it more clearly to the DSM model. Our Action can be found in section 3, lines 182 and 183 (making the connection to the DSM model), and in section 3.6 second paragraph to condense the literature review and emphasize studies directly related to the DSM model. In addition, we introduced a new section, 4.7, to conclude section 4. 

Comments 4: The description of the DSM model and platform design is overly complex and lacks clarity. The use of multiple terms like "mechanisms," "tools," and "components" creates confusion. A simplified and more streamlined explanation of the model's architecture and functionality is needed.  

Response 4: We agree that clarity is crucial. The description of the DSM model has been simplified with the framework, and a correct reference to the figure and some small changes to it have been included to illustrate the architecture. Our Action can be found in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the introduction section and the diagram referred to as Figure 1. Also, in section 5.1, there have been some changes, and the diagram of Figure 2 has been changed to a state diagram. 

Comments 5: The paper needs clearer explanations of the algorithms and workflows used in the platform implementation. The current descriptions are difficult to follow, and the use of multiple figures and tables adds to the confusion. A more concise and integrated presentation of the implementation details is needed.  

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reorganized and clarified the presentation of diagram-making notation for the algorithms. Redundant figures and tables have been consolidated for a more streamlined explanation. Our action can be found in Figures 4, 5, 7, and 10 of section 5.2, which provide a clearer and more concise description of the algorithms with improved integration of figures. 

Comments 6: The presentation of evaluation scenarios and results needs significant improvement. The paper currently uses multiple tables and charts that are not well-organized or explained. A more concise and focused presentation of key findings is needed, with clearer explanations of the results and their implications.  

Response 6: We appreciate this feedback. The evaluation scenarios and results have been reorganized with clearer explanations and more concise presentations of key findings. Our action can be found in section 6.1.1 where more details of the scenario's roles were added to better explain the results. In addition, we have strengthened the explanation of the implications of the results in section 6.4 (see comments 7).  

Comments 7: The paper needs a stronger analysis of the results. What are the key takeaways from each scenario? How do the results support the claims about the DSM model's effectiveness? A more in-depth discussion of the findings and their significance is needed.  

Response 7: Thank you for highlighting this. We have expanded the results analysis to include key takeaways from each scenario and linked them directly to the claims about the DSM model's effectiveness. Our action is to enhance Section 6.4 to provide a more detailed analysis of the results and Section 7 to better explain their implications. 

Comments 8: The discussion section needs to be expanded to include a more critical analysis of the DSM model's limitations and potential challenges. What are the potential drawbacks or unintended consequences of using the DSM model in real-world auction settings?  

Response 8: We agree that a critical analysis is important. The discussion has been expanded to address potential limitations and challenges, including unintended consequences in real-world settings. Our action expanded section 7 to include a critical analysis of the DSM model's limitations and potential challenges. 

Comments 9: The future work section needs more specific and actionable suggestions. What are the next steps in developing and refining the DSM model? What specific research questions need to be addressed? 

Response 9: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the future work section to include actionable steps and specific research questions for further development of the DSM model. Our action is to add more detailed suggestions in Section 7.1, outlining the next steps and research questions for future work. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper introduces a novel demand-supply matchmaking model within an integrated platform designed to improve fairness and sustainability in auction environments, aligning with the principles of the circular economy. The platform encompasses the DSM model, which addresses key challenges in supply chain management, such as equitable resource distribution and the reduction of environmental footprints. The DSM model operates within a broad framework that integrates environmental impact assessments, fairness assessments, and behavioral analytics. These mechanisms are implemented through specific tools and components within the platform, allowing for the simulation of bidder behavior and the assessment of auction scenarios. Our results demonstrate that the platform effectively promotes sustainable, fair, and informed auction practices. By comparing our approach with existing tools, we highlight the advantages of using this integrated framework to improve sustainability and fairness in digital marketplaces.

The overall theme of this article is well structured and logically clear. However, there are some problems with the article.

1. What are the advantages of the new supply and demand matching in the paper over the traditional one?

2. Adjusting the size of the diagrams and the font size in the paper.

3. The overall innovation in the thesis is relatively clear, but it could have been highlighted more directly in the introduction.

4. What are the reasons for the selection of the model in the paper, which combines environmental impact assessment, equity assessment, and behavioral analysis?

5. For the assessment scenarios, what is the difference between scenarios 1,2,3? What are the differences in roles?

6. There are other formatting issues in the paper.

7. There are some spelling and grammar errors in this paper. Please correct them.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: What are the advantages of the new supply and demand matching in the paper over the traditional one?  

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. We have elaborated on the advantages of our proposed supply-demand matching model over traditional methods. These advantages include improved fairness through equitable resource allocation, reduced environmental impacts via CO2 emissions analysis, and adaptability to various auction scenarios. Our Action includes adding new paragraphs 3 and 4 in the introduction section explicitly outlining the comparative advantages of the DSM model over traditional methods. 

Comments 2: Adjusting the size of the diagrams and the font size in the paper.  

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have ensured that all diagrams and their associated font sizes are consistent and legible across the manuscript. Our Action was to revise all diagrams, including Figures 1, 2, and 3, to improve clarity and font size.  

Comments 3: The overall innovation in the thesis is relatively clear, but it could have been highlighted more directly in the introduction.  

Response 3: We agree with this suggestion. The introduction has been revised to explicitly highlight the innovative aspects of the DSM model, including its integrated approach to fairness, environmental sustainability, and bidder behavior dynamics. Our Action was to enhance the introduction with dedicated paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 to emphasize the innovation of the DSM model. 

Comments 4: What are the reasons for the selection of the model in the paper, which combines environmental impact assessment, equity assessment, and behavioral analysis?  

Response 4: Thank you for raising this point. We have clarified the rationale for choosing these components, linking them to key challenges in auction systems and their alignment with circular economy principles. Our Action was to expand in more detail in the introduction, specifically paragraph 3, to provide a detailed justification for the inclusion of environmental impact, fairness, and behavioral analysis in the DSM model. 

Comments 5: For the assessment scenarios, what is the difference between scenarios 1,2,3? What are the differences in roles?  

Response 5: We appreciate this comment. We have clarified the differences among the three scenarios, particularly focusing on their roles in testing the DSM model. Our Action was to add more detailed descriptions in Section 6.1.1 to clarify the roles and distinctions among the scenarios. 

Comments 6: There are other formatting issues in the paper.  

Response 6: Thank you for noting this. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript to correct formatting inconsistencies, including alignment, spacing, and font in figures. Our action can be found in figures 4, 5, 7, and 10 of section 5.2, changing the latex image format to fix some spacing in the paper. 

Comments 7: There are some spelling and grammar errors in this paper. Please correct them. 

Response 7: We appreciate this observation. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed again to identify and correct any spelling and grammatical errors. Some of our actions can be found in the introduction paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Towards Sustainable and Fair Trade: Auctioning-Based Demand-Supply Matchmaking” is an interesting work to the field of sustainable auction systems. However, there are some points that need addressing to improve the clarity. The following is my detailed comments and suggestions for revision:

1. Empirical Validation: While simulations are conducted, real-world data and case studies would strengthen the claims regarding the platform’s effectiveness.

2. Consider revising the title to make it more specific and attractive, e.g., “An Integrated Auctioning Platform for Sustainable and Fair Demand-Supply Matchmaking”.

3. Clarify the specific gap in existing research that your work aims to fill.

4. Design of the DSM Model: Clearly define the key components and their interactions within the model. Consider a diagram to illustrate the architecture.

5. Development and Platform Implementation: Provide more details on the technical implementation, including algorithms and workflows. Consider additional pseudocode or flowcharts.

6. Evaluation Approach:

· Provide more details on the simulation scenarios and the data used. How was the data collected, and what are its limitations?

· Clarify the metrics used to evaluate fairness, environmental impact, and bidder behavior.

7. Consider discussing the broader implications of your findings for policy-making and industry practices.

8. Ensure all references are formatted consistently and follow the journal’s guidelines.

Author Response

Comments 1: Empirical Validation: While simulations are conducted, real-world data and case studies would strengthen the claims regarding the platform’s effectiveness. 

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. While real-world data was unavailable for this study, we have outlined a plan for future work to include empirical validation and case studies. Our action was added in Section 7.1, which discusses plans for future work, including empirical validation and real-world case studies. 

Comments 2: Consider revising the title to make it more specific and attractive, e.g., “An Integrated Auctioning Platform for Sustainable and Fair Demand-Supply Matchmaking”. 

Response 2: We appreciate this suggestion. We have revised the title to make it more specific and engaging. Our action was to update the title to "A Framework for Sustainable and Fair Demand-Supply Matchmaking through Auctioning." 

Comments 3: Clarify the specific gap in existing research that your work aims to fill. 

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have clarified the research gap in the introduction, emphasizing the unique aspects of our approach. Our Action can be found in the new paragraphs 3 and 4, which articulate the research gap more explicitly. 

Comments 4: Design of the DSM Model: Clearly define the key components and their interactions within the model. Consider a diagram to illustrate the architecture. 

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. We have refined the description of the DSM model and added a comprehensive state diagram to illustrate its architecture. Our action can be found in Figure 2 of section 5.1. 

Comments 5: Development and Platform Implementation: Provide more details on the technical implementation, including algorithms and workflows. Consider additional pseudocode or flowcharts. 

Response 5: We agree that more details are necessary. Additional details were added to the flowcharts have been included to clarify the technical implementation. Our action was to expand Section 5.2 and illustrate Figures 4, 5, 7, and 10 of Section 5.2. 

Comments 6a: Provide more details on the simulation scenarios and the data used. How was the data collected, and what are its limitations? 

Response 6a: Thank you for raising this point. We have expanded the description of simulation scenarios, data collection methods, and their limitations. Our action updated Section 6.1.1 to include detailed descriptions of simulation scenarios and section 6.1.2 data collection and limitations. 

Comments 6b: Clarify the metrics used to evaluate fairness, environmental impact, and bidder behavior. 

Response 6b: We agree with this suggestion. The evaluation metrics have been clarified and detailed. Our action can be revised in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2 to provide a clear explanation of metrics used to evaluate fairness, environmental impact, and bidder behavior. 

Comments 7: Consider discussing the broader implications of your findings for policy-making and industry practices. 

Response 7: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have expanded the discussion to explore broader implications for policy-making and industry practices. Our action-updated subsection in Sections 7 and 7.1 discusses the broader implications of the findings. 

Comments 8: Ensure all references are formatted consistently and follow the journal’s guidelines. 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed and revised all references to ensure consistency and compliance with journal guidelines. Our action was to review all references in the manuscript to adhere to the journal’s guidelines. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.