Dynamic Relief Items Distribution Model with Sliding Time Window in the Post-Disaster Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your article titled Dynamic Relief Items Distribution Model with Sliding Time Window in

the Post-Disaster Environment is relevant and interesting. the summary perfectly reveals the relevance of the topic, the purpose of the study, and the limitations of the model. in the theoretical part, an analysis of scientific literature was carried out by collecting new sources. the research part describes the obtained results in detail. the results are summarized in the conclusions. I missed the discussion section, I think it would be interesting to know further research directions and research conducted by scientists in this or an alternative direction.

Author Response

Comment: I missed the discussion section, I think it would be interesting to know further research directions and research conducted by scientists in this or an alternative direction.

Response:  The discussion section is revised with more clarification on the presented work. The further future works have been also added to this section (last two paragraphs, section 7).

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a dynamic optimised model with a sliding time window is proposed that defines the distribution schedule of relief items from multiple supply points to different disaster regions. The problem is interesting but there are critical issues which should be considered in this paper as follows:

What are the learning insights from the paper? What do you now recommend based on your work? This need to be modified in the abstract.

Authors should write full form of all the abbreviations in their first use. In the abstract authors have used IoT. 

Authors should add one sentence about the outcome/result and one sentence about the managerial implication in the abstract section.

The introduction section is poorly organized; there are lots of missing links, and in addition, the problem should be explained based on the necessity of researching the current subject in the introductory section, which does not happen in the current format. This section should be completely revised.

Authors should write the research question and research objective in the Introduction section, which may assist the readers to catch the point of the paper in the first section itself.

A short paragraph on the literature survey methodology should be given.

The literature review is also poorly organised. I have never seen any research gap as a sub-section, which is very important for proving the novelty of the paper. If possible divide the literature review into a two-three sub-section. Also, there are lots of papers are available in this area such as https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01713-5 which are missing.

How the data has been collected, data need to be furnished.

I wonder that there is no acknowledgement of results by previous studies, try to add some validation of your results with the literature backup.

The conclusion section looks like a summary, there are no in-depth insights in this section, and the managerial implications are also not addressed.

The entire paper has numerous mistakes in sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation (ex: commas, semicolons).  

Author Response

Comment: What are the learning insights from the paper? What do you now recommend based on your work? This need to be modified in the abstract.

Response: Abstract has been modified with the learning insight of the paper.

Comment: Authors should write full form of all the abbreviations in their first use. In the abstract authors have used IoT. 

Response: This issue is addressed by adding the full form.

Comment: Authors should add one sentence about the outcome/result and one sentence about the managerial implication in the abstract section.

Response: The managerial aspects of the outcome has been added in the revised abstract.

Comment: The introduction section is poorly organized; there are lots of missing links, and in addition, the problem should be explained based on the necessity of researching the current subject in the introductory section, which does not happen in the current format. Authors should write the research question and research objective in the Introduction section, which may assist the readers to catch the point of the paper in the first section itself.

Response: I would like for this valuable comment. The introduction section has been revised highlighting the current scenarios and the aim of the presented research. We believe the contributions of the paper is self-explanatory by the covering research questions of this paper and also justify what are missing aspects sin current states of art. This section and the rest of the paper is thoroughly revised the address any missing links. We tried to present the work in as simple way as to make easier for the reader.

Comment: A short paragraph on the literature survey methodology should be given.

Response: The literature survey strategy considering the scope of this paper is added in the first paragraph of the related work section.

Comment: The literature review is also poorly organised. I have never seen any research gap as a sub-section, which is very important for proving the novelty of the paper. If possible divide the literature review into a two-three sub-section. Also, there are lots of papers are available in this area such as https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01713-5 which are missing.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The literature review section-2 is divided into subsection. More related works, along with the suggested research, are added to give more clear highlights on the researches of the presented domains. Research gap, in the last paragraph of this section-2, has been further clarified to present the research gap in relation the literature review.

Comment: How the data has been collected, data need to be furnished.

Response: In this paper, the use case scenario is taken from Chi-Chi earthquake (reference number 14). The use case static information has been used as it was presented. Additional data are synthesized based on other research work in this domain. The explanation of these data has been presented in different sections when it has been used. The following sections describe how the data been furnished:

• Section 3.3 third paragraph presents the road condition data.
• Section 3.4, Table 3 presents the heterogenous vehicles’ data (numbers, cost and speed)
• Section 4, first paragraph describe data from Chi-Chi earthquake presented in Table 4
• Section 4.1 synthesied data for vehicles’ availability at different supply point presented in Table 5.

Comment: Add some validation of your results with the literature backup.

Response: This work is presented as a dynamic RID model that reflects the more realistic disaster scenario and can assist the decision-makers in relief management. Validation of this work is discussed as a section (6) highlighting what has been missing in other models and how it overcome those. Also, the need of this presented work is discussion in section 4.2.4 that also validate the presented work. The validation in terms of use case study model is added in the discussion section (first paragraph)

Comment: The conclusion section looks like a summary, there are no in-depth insights in this section, and the managerial implications are also not addressed.

Response: The conclusion section (7) has been revised with highlighting the contribution of the paper. Managerial aspect has been also presented with further clarification. This section is also revised with future works.

Comment: The entire paper has numerous mistakes in sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation (ex: commas, semicolons).  

Response: The paper has been revised and correction has been applied to make the sentence grammatically well structured.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Dynamic Relief Items Distribution Model with Sliding Time Window in the Post-Disaster Environment“ is understandable and of a great significance. Below are the points that the authors need to consider:

1. In the introduction, clearly point out and explain the goal of the study. You have described contributions but not the aim(s) of the study.

2. In conclusion, highlight the basic results of the study and comment on them in relation to the goal of the study. Compare and comment on the results of the study in relation to the results of other studies mentioned in the Introduction or Related Works chapters.

3. In conclusion, clearly point out the scientific and professional contribution of this study and what are the recommendations or improvements in the continuation of the approach. Make it clear - what are the weaknesses and what are the advantages of the described methodological approach.

4. The authors should also discuss the future directions of their study in the Conclusion.

5. Please check for typos in the document such as on line 245 - transprtation

I recommend that the authors should revise their manuscript to address the above concerns and resubmit their manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1. In the introduction, clearly point out and explain the goal of the study. You have described contributions but not the aim(s) of the study.

Response: The introduction section is revised to further clarify the aims of the study (third paragraph).

Comment 2. In conclusion, highlight the basic results of the study and comment on them in relation to the goal of the study. Compare and comment on the results of the study in relation to the results of other studies mentioned in the Introduction or Related Works chapters.

Response:  Thank you for the valuable comment. The section 7 has been revised to highlight the results from the study in relation to study. The highlight of basic results area also supported by the section 6. Also, the need of this presented work is discussion in section 4.2.4 that can also validate the presented work. The validation in terms of use case study model is added in the discussion section (first paragraph).

Comment 3: The recommendations or improvements in the continuation of the approach. Make it clear - what are the weaknesses and what are the advantages of the described methodological approach.

Response: Recommendations has been added in terms of future work in the section 7 (last two paragraphs). The limitations (weakness) and advantages of the presented models have been further clarified in the last paragraph, section 5.

Comment 4. The authors should also discuss the future directions of their study in the Conclusion.

Response: The discussion section-7 is revised with more clarification on the presented work. The further future works have been also added to this section-7.

Comment 5. Please check for typos in the document such as on line 245 – transprtation

Response: Thank you for pointing out typo error. This typo error has been corrected. In the revised version, the entire paper has been reviewed for any possible type errors.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have incorporated almost all the comments. The paper may be accepted as it is