System Dynamics for Manufacturing: Supply Chain Simulation of Hemp-Reinforced Polymer Composite Manufacturing for Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is interesting and has important potential consequences. But the manuscript needs the following optional modifications:

1.      Figure 1 at page 6, and Figure 3 at page 11: The resolution of these figures is suboptimal, which impacts the clarity and readability of the visual data they presented since low-resolution figures may obscure critical details, making it difficult for readers to interpret the presented results accurately. Therefore, authors are recommended to replace the mentioned figures with high-resolution versions (e.g. 300 dpi is typically recommended for print quality).

2.      The references section cites 41 references, including several relevant and recent works from the past five years. However, the manuscript lacks a comparison with these references to validate the proposed method.

Author Response

Comment 1: Figure 1 at page 6, and Figure 3 at page 11: The resolution of these figures is suboptimal, which impacts the clarity and readability of the visual data they presented since low-resolution figures may obscure critical details, making it difficult for readers to interpret the presented results accurately. Therefore, authors are recommended to replace the mentioned figures with high-resolution versions (e.g. 300 dpi is typically recommended for print quality).

Response 1: We appreciate your observation and have made changes accordingly.

 

Comment 2: The references section cites 41 references, including several relevant and recent works from the past five years. However, the manuscript lacks a comparison with these references to validate the proposed method.

Response 2: We have addressed this concern by including a clarification in the second-to-last paragraph of the Conclusion, emphasizing that the method presented in this research has not been previously developed or presented by any other author for supply chain simulation of HRPC.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

System Dynamics for Manufacturing: Supply Chain Simulation of Hemp-Reinforced Polymer Composite Manufacturing for Sustainability, Gurinder Kaur, Ronald Kander

For Authors and Editors

Authors say that to the best of their knowledge, this study is the first to utilize SDM to simulate a supply chain for HRPC manufacturing with the goal of enhancing sustainability, and, as far as I know, this is true.

Style aspects

Authors should include affiliation details.

Abstract should be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum, it is quite longer than that.

Language and format comments

Language is good. Only few corrections are needed, as for example:

Abstract

Line 12

Inaccurate estimation of raw materials, labor, or equipment often leads to financial losses and environmental impact

Inaccurate estimation of raw materials, labor, or equipment often lead to financial losses and environmental impact

1.     Introduction

Line 43

planning policies, and demand forecasting [6,7]

Missing point.

Line 52

By using these insights companies can develop strategies to minimize delays

By using these insights, companies can develop strategies to minimize delays

Line 66

According to Pullman and Wu adding sustainability to supply chain

According to Pullman and Wu, adding sustainability to supply chain

Line 99

By addressing the lack of polymer material and adding more decorticators the optimized model increased material processing capacity

By addressing the lack of polymer material and adding more decorticators, the optimized model increased material processing capacity

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comment 1: Authors should include affiliation details.

Response 1: We agree with your suggestion and have included the affiliation details as requested.

 

Comment 2: Abstract should be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum, it is quite longer than that.

Response 2: We agree with your feedback and have revised the abstract to ensure it is a single paragraph with a word count under 200 words.

 

Comment 3: Language is good. Only few corrections are needed, as for example.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggested corrections. We have incorporated all the recommended changes into the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors investigated the use of system dynamics modeling (SDM) in the production of hemp-reinforced polymer composites (HRPC), with the goal of optimizing material, labor, and equipment consumption. By using system dynamics (SD), the production unit can improve sustainability by reducing the usage of materials, labor, and equipment, cutting energy consumption. Their research used SDM software and concluded that SDM simulation is an excellent way for optimizing materials, labor, and equipment in the production of HRPC materials. By modeling multiple supply chain situations in a risk-free environment, the model minimizes resource consumption while increasing production efficiency, hence boosting sustainability. Furthermore, the STELLA® model's outputs can be used as inputs for life cycle assessment (LCA), which quantifies environmental impacts.

This study is distinguished by a clear purpose, straightforward and simple software usage, which translates to uncomplicated technique and detailed data presentation. Therefore, I recommend accepting it after responding to the following comments:

1. The authors should clarify the sustainability of utilizing their software in the way they have stated it.

2: The introduction and literature review sections are excessively long and tedious. The authors should shorten them and focus on what is relevant to the research topic.

3. The findings should be compared to other simulation methods to highlight the study's uniqueness and significance.

4: It should be apparent what the value of employing a basic and accessible method is, as well as how the findings of this study contribute to sustainability (in the abstract and results & discussion sections).

5-      The conclusions section should be rewritten to highlight the most relevant findings from this research in specified points and link them to the study's aims, as well as to demonstrate the extent to which the research technique used was appropriate.

6: Limitations should be included in the conclusions, while recommendations for future work ought to be separate from the conclusion.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below.

Comment 1. The authors should clarify the sustainability of utilizing their software in the way they have stated it.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have addressed this concern by providing a clarification on the sustainability of utilizing the proposed software in the second-to-last paragraph of the Conclusion.

 

Comment 2: The introduction and literature review sections are excessively long and tedious. The authors should shorten them and focus on what is relevant to the research topic.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully reviewed the Introduction and Literature Review sections and ensured that they are written to be precise yet clear for the reader. After thorough consideration, we did not identify any redundant areas that could be removed without compromising the reader's understanding of the research. Additionally, the other reviewers did not raise this concern, and therefore, with all due respect, we have decided to retain these sections in their current form to preserve the comprehensiveness of the manuscript.

 

Comment 3: The findings should be compared to other simulation methods to highlight the study's uniqueness and significance.

Comment 3: We appreciate the suggestion to compare our findings to other simulation methods. However, a comparison to other simulation methods is outside the intended focus of this paper. This study specifically aims to leverage SDM for simulating the supply chain of HRPC for enhancing sustainability, and including comparisons with other methodologies would risk diverting from this primary objective. Future research could certainly explore such comparisons to further validate and expand upon the findings presented here.

 

Comment 4: It should be apparent what the value of employing a basic and accessible method is, as well as how the findings of this study contribute to sustainability (in the abstract and results & discussion sections).

Response 4: We have revised the Abstract and Conclusion sections to address the concern regarding how the findings of this study contribute to sustainability.

 

Comment 5: The conclusions section should be rewritten to highlight the most relevant findings from this research in specified points and link them to the study's aims, as well as to demonstrate the extent to which the research technique used was appropriate.

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. The Conclusion section has been carefully crafted to present all the findings from this research, which are directly linked to the study's aims. As the other reviewers did not raise concerns regarding the conclusion, we have chosen to retain this section in its current form.

 

Comment 6 : Limitations should be included in the conclusions, while recommendations for future work ought to be separate from the conclusion.

Response 6: We have revised the manuscript to separate the Limitations and Future Work sections from the Conclusion section, as recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors  replied successfully to reviews comments and consequently improved the quality of this manuscript. 

Therefore, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in its current form.