Decision-Making in Complementary Products Supply Chain: Game Theory and Sensitivity Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Decision-Making in Complementary Products Supply Chain: Game Theory and Sensitivity Analysis
In this work, the authors try to evaluate the perspective of mitigating conflicts between supply and demand parties within supply chain channels while making use of the distinct connections and objectives shared between complementary products. The application of a game-theoretic model makes it interesting and applicable. The manuscript is also written well. However, there are several issues to be taken into account by authors: 1. Numerical accomplishments of your work should be reflected in the abstract. 2. I cannot find any references in Section 1. Moreover, the research goals to fill out the gaps are not discussed there. 3. You are using two different referencing formats at the same time! 4. Although the number of reviewed studies is enough, the number of recent research works is not! Please go through the literature and find more relevant and recent studies. You can look for those performed by Tirkolaee et al., Weber et al., and their groups. 5. First, please define all the mathematical notations in a table in Section 3. 6. The numbers given to formulas are disordered; please check them. 7. What are the advantages of your proposed model against similar ones as referenced in Section 3? 8. Is there any control over beta1 and beta2? 9. There are some writing errors at the end of Page 9 and in the other sections. 10. How could you set the parameters in Sub-section 5.1? 11. Experiments are well-designed. However, there is a lack of detailed discussion of the main practical insights as well as theoretical implications. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI found several grammatical errors to be fixed carefully.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. All your generous comments and suggestions are valuable to the revision and refinement of our paper. We have revised the manuscript based on all comments and hope the revised version can meet your requirements.Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 1: Numerical accomplishments of your work should be reflected in the abstract.
Response 1: Thanks to your suggestion. We added the results of numerical analysis in the abstract. Based on the numerical changes, the abstract explains the influence characteristics of relevant parameters.
Point 2: I cannot find any references in Section 1. Moreover, the research goals to fill out the gaps are not discussed there.
Response 2: Thanks to your suggestion.We added references in the introduction and supplemented the blank research objectives at the end of this chapter.
Point 3: You are using two different referencing formats at the same time!
Response 3: Thanks to your comments. We unified the citation format according to the suggestions.
Point 4: Although the number of reviewed studies is enough, the number of recent research works is not! Please go through the literature and find more relevant and recent studies. You can look for those performed by Tirkolaee et al., Weber et al., and their groups.
Response 4: Thank you for your useful suggestions. We have added recent research literature to the article.
Point 5: First, please define all the mathematical notations in a table in Section 3.
Response 5: Thank you for your useful suggestions. We defined all the mathematical symbols in a table in Section 3.2 as suggested.( Table 1.)
Point 6: The numbers given to formulas are disordered; please check them.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out our inadequacies. We reordered the formulas in the article.
Point 7: What are the advantages of your proposed model against similar ones as referenced in Section 3?
Response 7: Thank you for pointing out our inadequacies. We supplemented the advantages of the model we established at the end of Chapter 5.
Point 8: Is there any control over beta1 and beta2?
Response 8: In this study, and were separately used as the objects of sensitivity analysis in different experimental Settings.
When analyzing the influence of other parameters remain fixed. When analyzing the influence of , other parameters remain unchanged.
This control method ensures the validity of the analysis results and the clarity of the single-factor influence.
Point 9: There are some writing errors at the end of Page 9 and in the other sections.
Response 9: Thank you for providing a key suggestion. We have checked the writing content and made revisions.
Point 10: How could you set the parameters in Sub-section 5.1?
Response 10: In Sub-section 5.1, the parameter setting considers the balance of the following factors: Parameter setting satisfies the mathematical conditions for the existence of equilibrium solutions. Parameters can reflect industry characteristics (such as price elasticity, competition intensity). By adjusting the range, the article could study different market scenarios.
Point 11: Experiments are well-designed. However, there is a lack of detailed discussion of the main practical insights as well as theoretical implications.
Response 11: Thanks to your suggestion. We supplemented the discussion of the main insights and theoretical significance at the end of the research summary in Chapter 6.
We also improved the content and format of the full paper, and made some small local adjustments. We truly hope the revised manuscript is now acceptable to you. If there are other suggestions, we are glad to receive any further feedback which we shall continue to apply our best effort to address.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article explores how to mitigate conflicts between supply and demand sides of the supply chain based on the complementary relationship between products and the level of service that consumers are concerned about. Admittedly, the article is interesting, but there are still the following areas that need to be improved, and hopefully with revisions it can be brought up to a publishable level.
- In the introduction, the author does not describe enough specific conflict scenarios, I think it needs to be supplemented with real life examples of how complementary products can lead to price and service conflicts.
- There is no literature citation in the introduction, which I think is inappropriate and proper literature citation is needed to draw out the necessity of the research question.
- Admittedly, the author describes the innovation and contribution of this paper at the end of the introduction, but through the whole introduction, the problem under study is not well elicited, which makes it difficult to catch the core purpose of this paper, I hope the author strengthens the elicitation of the problem and summarizes the key research questions.
- In the literature review, the cited literature is rather old and lacks references to the latest literature. In addition, the categorization of the literature is not very well done and the summarization of the research gaps is lacking.
- In the modeling, please explain the reason for “ignoring the production cost of product A”.
- I think the numbering of the formulas needs to be rearranged, and the numbering should start from Chapter III.
- In the analysis in Chapter 4, I think the results need to be supplemented with comparisons with the existing literature and supported by real-life examples to make the results more convincing.
- The labeling of charts needs to be refined by adding a legend for horizontal coordinates in Figure 2 and ensuring that the font size of the pictures is uniform to enhance the sense of view.
- The conclusion of the summary is relatively thin, but also need to put forward practical recommendations for supply chain management to provide management wisdom.
- There are a number of statements repeated in the text, I hope to double-check.
- The number of literature citations is relatively low, and it is hoped that there will be at least 40 citations. The summary of the research deficiencies also needs to strengthen the elaboration of the research methodology, which can be referred to this latest article on evolutionary gaming (Analysis of dynamic strategies for decision-making on retrofitting carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology in coal-fired power plants), and this study of dynamic optimal control (Dynamic Optimal Control Strategy of CCUS Technology Innovation in Coal Power Stations Under Environmental Protection Tax), these approaches will also be new pathways for resolving supply chain conflicts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. All your generous comments and suggestions are valuable to the revision and refinement of our paper. We have revised the manuscript based on all comments and hope the revised version can meet your requirements.Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 1: In the introduction, the author does not describe enough specific conflict scenarios, I think it needs to be supplemented with real life examples of how complementary products can lead to price and service conflicts.
Response 1: Thanks to your comments. In the introduction, we have added examples of price conflicts and service conflicts to illustrate the conflict scenarios of complementary goods.
Point 2: There is no literature citation in the introduction, which I think is inappropriate and proper literature citation is needed to draw out the necessity of the research question.
Response 2: Thank you for providing a key suggestion. We added references in the introduction part.
Point 3: Admittedly, the author describes the innovation and contribution of this paper at the end of the introduction, but through the whole introduction, the problem under study is not well elicited, which makes it difficult to catch the core purpose of this paper, I hope the author strengthens the elicitation of the problem and summarizes the key research questions.
Response 3: Thanks to your suggestion. We supplemented the explanation of the research question in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Point 4: In the literature review, the cited literature is rather old and lacks references to the latest literature. In addition, the categorization of the literature is not very well done and the summarization of the research gaps is lacking.
Response 4: Thanks to your comments. We have added recent research literature and made modifications to the literature review section for this.
Point 5: In the modeling, please explain the reason for “ignoring the production cost of product A”.
Response 5: Thank you for your sincere comments. We have supplemented the reasons for "ignoring the production cost of Product A".
Point 6: I think the numbering of the formulas needs to be rearranged, and the numbering should start from Chapter III.
Response 6: Thank you for providing a key suggestion. We renumbered the formula as suggested.
Point 7: In the analysis in Chapter 4, I think the results need to be supplemented with comparisons with the existing literature and supported by real-life examples to make the results more convincing.
Response 7: Thank you for your sincere comments. We added two examples at the end of 4.2 and 4.3 to illustrate the conclusion.
Point 8: The labeling of charts needs to be refined by adding a legend for horizontal coordinates in Figure 2 and ensuring that the font size of the pictures is uniform to enhance the sense of view.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the text size of the four sensitivity analysis graphs starting from Figure 2, and also added coordinate axes in the four graphs.
Point 9: The conclusion of the summary is relatively thin, but also need to put forward practical recommendations for supply chain management to provide management wisdom.
Response 9: Thank you for your sincere comments. We added management insights in the ending paragraph.
Point 10: There are a number of statements repeated in the text, I hope to double-check.
Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. We examined the full text and made revisions.
Point 11: The number of literature citations is relatively low, and it is hoped that there will be at least 40 citations. The summary of the research deficiencies also needs to strengthen the elaboration of the research methodology, which can be referred to this latest article on evolutionary gaming (Analysis of dynamic strategies for decision-making on retrofitting carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology in coal-fired power plants), and this study of dynamic optimal control (Dynamic Optimal Control Strategy of CCUS Technology Innovation in Coal Power Stations Under Environmental Protection Tax), these approaches will also be new pathways for resolving supply chain conflicts.
Response 11: Thank you for pointing out our inadequacies. We increased the number of literature citations as required, and at the same time, supplemented the statement on the research methods in the summary of the research deficiencies in the outlook section of Chapter 6.
We also improved the content and format of the full paper, and made some small local adjustments. We truly hope the revised manuscript is now acceptable to you. If there are other suggestions, we are glad to receive any further feedback which we shall continue to apply our best effort to address.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper addresses a timely and important topic—how complementary products can be used to mitigate channel conflict in dual-channel supply chains. By modeling centralized and decentralized decision-making through a game-theoretical lens, it makes several valuable contributions. Hoewer:
Several sentences are unnecessarily long and syntactically dense. Examples include the abstract and section 4, which would benefit from breaking down complex statements into simpler phrases.
Phrasing such as “no sensible decision-maker would increase costs...” (Section 1) should be reworded more academically.
The paper would benefit from an explicitly stated research gap at the end of the introduction to clearly position its novelty.
Section 5.1 through 5.4 could use tighter transitions. Each figure is informative, but additional interpretation directly linked to managerial implications would be useful.
The paper outlines strong theoretical implications but should strengthen its practical orientation. For instance, how can managers implement these pricing strategies given real-world constraints like incomplete information or brand management?
Section 6 outlines potential extensions regarding inventory and stochastic demand. Consider developing this section further by linking it to recent trends in AI-driven pricing or consumer personalization.
While the assumptions are grounded in literature, some are quite restrictive (e.g., no production cost for Product A). A brief discussion of how results may generalize (or not) under relaxed assumptions would increase robustness.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome awkward constructions, grammatical inconsistencies, and overly long sentences affect clarity. A thorough language revision is recommended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. All your generous comments and suggestions are valuable to the revision and refinement of our paper. We have revised the manuscript based on all comments and hope the revised version can meet your requirements.Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 1: Several sentences are unnecessarily long and syntactically dense. Examples include the abstract and section 4, which would benefit from breaking down complex statements into simpler phrases.
Response 1: Thank you for your useful suggestions. We have made full grammatical modifications to the suggestions.
Point 2: Phrasing such as “no sensible decision-maker would increase costs...” (Section 1) should be reworded more academically.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out our inadequacies. We have made expressive modifications to the suggestions.
Point 3: The paper would benefit from an explicitly stated research gap at the end of the introduction to clearly position its novelty.
Response 3: Thank you for providing a key suggestion. We added point (3) at the end of the introduction to explain the research gap.
Point 4: Section 5.1 through 5.4 could use tighter transitions. Each figure is informative, but additional interpretation directly linked to managerial implications would be useful.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out our inadequacies. We modified the analysis sections from 5.1 to 5.4 and linked them with management.
Point 5: The paper outlines strong theoretical implications but should strengthen its practical orientation. For instance, how can managers implement these pricing strategies given real-world constraints like incomplete information or brand management?
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out our inadequacies. We added the enlightenment of managers in the last chapter.
Point 6: Section 6 outlines potential extensions regarding inventory and stochastic demand. Consider developing this section further by linking it to recent trends in AI-driven pricing or consumer personalization.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. We added this part in the outlooks section of Chapter 6.
Point 7: While the assumptions are grounded in literature, some are quite restrictive (e.g., no production cost for Product A). A brief discussion of how results may generalize (or not) under relaxed assumptions would increase robustness.
Response 7: Thanks to your comments. Regarding this issue, we have explained it in the research deficiencies at the end of the article.
We also improved the content and format of the full paper, and made some small local adjustments. We truly hope the revised manuscript is now acceptable to you. If there are other suggestions, we are glad to receive any further feedback which we shall continue to apply our best effort to address.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed the comments well. However, one issue to be considered: the format of the references must be based on the journal guidelines.
