Development of Risk Management Mitigation Plans for the Infant Formula Milk Supply Chain Using an AHP Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper focuses on the development of risk management mitigation plans for infant formula milk supply chain using an AHP model. In general, this topic is interesting and some comments are listed as follows:
1. Please emphasis what is the specific scientific problem this paper is solving. 2. What is the key selling point of this paper comparing to other papers addressing similar problems. 3. Please make the future work part clear such that the readers will know what are the potential subsequent research direction. 4. The tables and figures are badly plotted and should be significantly revised for a clear readership. 5. More equations and derivations are needed to demonstrate the key ideas of the given algorithms. 6. I cannot get any key information from fig. 8, and please resort this issue. 7. Most of the references are too old, and some of them are even 10 years from now. 8. In literature review part, model predictive control for planning should be mentioned, e.g., Machine learning based decision making for time varying systems: Parameter estimation and performance optimization, Knowledge-Based Systems 190, 105479.Minor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
I congratulate the authors for reporting on the research conducted, which aimed to identify the most critical risks affecting the quality of IFM in the supply chain and determine mitigation strategies to improve the measurement of IFM performance. In this regard, the authors developed a model to reduce adulteration and contamination rates in infant formula milk powder (IFMSCs) supply chains and maximize safety. the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model was used to analyze and prioritize mitigation alternatives. The study is relevant and contributes to the discussion of the subject in academia, however, the impact of the results, if they improve the process will be much more significant. Despite the above mentions, I observed opportunities for improvement concerning the current text, which I will detail below:
1. The references are registered in APA style in disconformity with the journal standard. I suggest that authors consult the guide for authors and make the necessary adjustments to the entire manuscript;
2. I suggest that the authors insert a summary at the end of the introduction describing the other sections of the manuscript;
3. In section 2, the authors did not report the conditions and parameters used in the literature review. As palavras chaves, bases pesquisadas e criterios inclusão dos artigos encontrados para ser relatados;
4. In section 3.2.4, the authors stated that using the AHP model, the weights can be assigned to each criterion based on the pairwise comparison measurement performed to evaluate the alternative performance ranking through the questionnaire survey. However, throughout the paper, they did not justify the choice of the AHP method among many other methods reported by experts in multicriteria methods. The article https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11111720 reports a review about multicriteria methods that can subsidize the authors in this task. However, there are other methods that can be used as criteria weights. I suggest considering the article https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285 in the justification construction.
5. I suggest turning figure 8 into a painting.
6. I believe that Table 9 could be better illustrated if the page were in landscape format.
Good review
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments.
Minor editing of English language is required.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
I congratulate you for the extensive revision you have implemented in the current version of the manuscript applsci-2459716. I have seen that the observations reported by the reviewers in the first round of revision have been implemented. In the current version, I have not observed any other improvement that could be pointed out that would substantially increase the quality of the manuscript. I believe that it is in a condition to be considered for publication.
Best regards
Reviewer
