Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main drawbacks of the paper are the following:

 

The Abstract section shifts the focus of the research study, which is confusing and does not attract a reader to read further as well as the sentence structure needs careful restructuring and re-writing. The research ideas could have been more effective through the use of elaborative and concise sentences. The abstract does not provide a concise account of the work and conclusion of the research study. It needs to be more structured and synthesized for research clarity.

 

The Introduction section is essential to explain in further detail the research gaps in the domain that the paper seeks to close and why the paper is needed to recognize the current gaps in the literature knowledge.

 

The results were not well-presented to readers to understand the focus of the research study.

The results must be interpretive rather than just descriptive and connect the research results with relevant literature citations for validity and reliability.

The discussions are not well-presented as they do not integrate with the research study's results to provide a coherent scholarly argument.

The 23 tables and 16 figures are so many and are not connected with relevant literature citations.

Discussing the results could be improved by interpreting them in support of theories related to the research topic.

The authors should include the key focus of the study in conclusion. 

A follow-up of restated findings/results with supporting literature reviews could make the conclusion section more effective.

 

The source of the following figures: Figure 1 Overview of Logistics in the Greater Mekong Subregion Corridors; Figure 2. Proposed problem definition; Figure 3. Transportation network design of the solution is given in Table 7; Figure 15. Transborder logistics network scheme for durian and maize; Figure 16. Transportation route and network for durian and maize – are missing.

 

The title of Figure 3. Transportation network design of the solution given in Table 7 - could be the following: Figure 3. Transportation network design of the solution

 

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is quite interesting, but presented in a rather complicated way. It would be good for the authors to present the possibility of its practical application.

I have a few minor technical notes:

1. Most publications are older than 2020. Only 14 are from 2020 and more - with such a current topic, I suggest that you provide more up-to-date literature

2. Literature should be adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal, it should be corrected

3. Some figures are difficult to read, their quality should be improved - e.g. figures 2, 15 and 16 are practically illegible

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We are correct them all.

Comments	Answers
The article is quite interesting, but presented in a rather complicated way. It would be good for the authors to present the possibility of its practical application.   I have a few minor technical notes:   1. Most publications are older than 2020. Only 14 are from 2020 and more - with such a current topic, I suggest that you provide more up-to-date literature	The article has been updated by added following 30+ references are from 2020-2022
2. Literature should be adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal; it should be corrected	We have corrected them all.
3. Some figures are difficult to read, their quality should be improved - e.g. figures 2, 15 and 16 are practically illegible	We changed the quality of the Figure in accordance with your recommendation; we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful advice. However, Figure 16 was removed

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.