Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is interesting, especially in the context of changes associated with retail and the increased interest to invest in customer experiences (i.e., new retail). The study is sound and addresses one main element of customer demand - the idea of decreased delivery time associated with fresh products and arguably, all products. 

A main area in which the authors can improve is definitions. Clarifying the definitions of key concepts initially would help.  For example, define 'new retail' clearly and outline which aspect the study addresses. Understanding this part of the study required reading the introduction a few times.

In addition, the authors moved almost directly into 'centralized' and 'decentralized' structures (or decision-models) without an explanation of these structures and how they relate to the new retail business model of online/offline distribution. It seems the introduction and study objectives treat offline and online platforms as separate entities in the supply chain.

Finally, it is not clear how the authors arrive at justifying the examination of 'cooperative/non-cooperative/coordinated decision structures or why these are relevant.  Are these platforms separate?  Do they compete against each other?  Are they in the same supply chain structure as coordinating/collaborate platforms that offer online/offline distribution solutions?

The lack of clarity in the introduction and literature review for the context of the study as well as the definitions of these major elements is confusing.  This can be resolved fairly easily, but would greatly improve the study's objectives, direction for the mathematical models and provide 'consistency' to the conclusions.

Minor points -

- What is the difference between the hypotheses and the propositions in this study?  Do the hypotheses highlight the background or study premise while the propositions highlight the actual study 'parameters?'

- Indicate the proposition results and their relation to the conclusions.  This would help point to propositions/results/study's contributions.

Overall, nice study and model. 

 

The English is fine and the study is written well.  The main comment, which is reflected in the review, is the lack of clarity among the main concepts and definitions.  The comments of English is primarily of style - with solid definitions and direction, for example, the paper will be much easier to comprehend on the first reading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

The paper addresses an important and currently discussed topic of fresh products’ supply chain with delivery time . However, its content and structure require major modification and enrichment:

1. Literature Review section should be much more expanded including the the review of the latest articles concerning the abalysed topic.

2. The article lacks of Discussion part. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

3. In section presenting results, the authors should include the information if the hypothesis are confirmed or not.

4. The literature should be cited according to journal requirements.

 

The text includes many typos, so I recommend professional proof-reading of the whole text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is focused on extremely important topic regarding the new retail concept.
All the required sections are included in the paper, they are prepared well and I think the paper is publishable.

 However, I would like to advise the authors to consider changing a few issues as follows (in order of appearance in the text):
1. Please consider placing current lines 27-33 after the paragraph in lines 34-44. Now the beginning of the Introduction is not clear and too much detailed information is there.
2. If accepting the change in 1 above, then please clarify in one sentence at the very beginning what (in a nutshell) is the new retail concept.
3. Please review the text to avoid typos (e.g. line 62, Figure 1)
4. In the places in the text where the units of measure should be mentioned please inform the reader about them, e.g. shelf life - in days?
5. I think the statement in line 287-288 "According to the hypothesis of the parameter" is unclear - please be more precise
6. Please add the limitations paragraph to the conclusion

I have no additional comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is interesting and touches on a current issue.

The specialized literature still needs to be revised with more details and adapted to the needs of the created model.

Discussion is missing

Conclusion, the authors lack a vision of the future usefulness of the model to be used in practice

References need to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx