Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find the contribution very interesting and I have just a few comments on it:

Introduction could be shortened Row 85-86 I agree with this sentence but should be supported by scientific literature Indicate the source immediately after the author, eg: row 89 „Wang et al. [16] used…. ”Correct throughout the text (row 91, 104, 106, 107, 115, 118 ………) Authors in Chapter 2 very often begin sentences on behalf of the Authors of Publications… I recommend this concept be changed sometimes, it declines the literary level of the article. I really like the part of row 101-110 In chapter 3.1, where the authors represent the traditional model, I would welcome more literary sources so that the reader can expand his knowledge if he needs to. This would make it possible to shorten this part. There is no discussion in the Conlusion chapter, although this is a limited topic, it would be advisable to include it at least in part. I appreciate mentioning the limits at the end of the article.

Author Response

Comment #1: I agree with this sentence but should be supported by scientific literature Indicate the source immediately after the author, eg: row 89„ Wang et al. [16] used…. ”Correct throughout the text (row 91, 104, 106, 107, 115, 118 ………) Authors in Chapter 2 very often begin sentences on behalf of the Authors of Publications… I recommend this concept be changed sometimes, it declines the literary level of the article.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. In Chapter 2, the citations of the literature have been adjusted.

 

Comment #2: I really like the part of row 101-110 In chapter 3.1, where the authors represent the traditional model, I would welcome more literary sources so that the reader can expand his knowledge if he needs to. This would make it possible to shorten this part.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, two references have been added to this section. In these two literatures, two classic heuristic algorithms are introduced in detail. In addition, the number of references in the article have been readjusted.

 

Comment #3: There is no discussion in the Conclusion chapter, although this is a limited topic, it would be advisable to include it at least in part. I appreciate mentioning the limits at the end of the article.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. The conclusion part is modified at the end of the article. The limitations of the methods used in this paper are discussed again, and the corresponding suggestions are given.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focuses an intersting topic in an appropriate way. Research question is clear. Literature is rich and updated. Methodology is well described.

Anyway I suggest to improve conclusions, linking them to literature and objective of the paper and to add managerial implications 

Author Response

 

Comment #1: This paper focuses an interesting topic in an appropriate way. Research question is clear. Literature is rich and updated. Methodology is well described. Anyway I suggest to improve conclusions, linking them to literature and objective of the paper and to add managerial implications

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. The conclusion part is modified at the end of the article. Highlights the contribution of this article and its inspiration to management, and re-explains the limitations of this article.