Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Layout optimization of the logistics and warehouse land based on a multi-objective genetic algorithm——TakingWuhan city as an example

The growing demand for logistics and the planning and construction of logistics facilities to meet this demand are of increasing importance today. In this context, this study aims to assess how effective the spatial arrangement of logistics and warehousing areas is to meet the current demand. My views on the study are given below.

Points to note in the abstract:

·         The text does not indicate which data limitations and limitations of quantitative analysis methods are present.

·         It does not explain the link between the before and after situation without providing more information about the relevant background and current situation.

·         There should be more explanation about the generalizations of the study and the extent to which the findings are valid.

·         More details on the applicability and general validity of the methodology should be provided.

Points to be considered in the introduction:

·         Summary of the Study: The introduction should summarize the main objectives and overall purpose of the study. This should indicate the scope of the research and the contributions it aims to make.

·         Literature Review: The introduction should summarize similar studies and indicate how the research will contribute to existing knowledge.

·         Research Questions/Hypotheses: Specific questions or hypotheses that define the focus of the research should be stated in the introduction.

·         Summary of Methods: The introduction should include a brief summary of the research methods. This gives the reader an overview of how the research was conducted.

·         Expected Contributions: Clear statements of the expectations of the study and estimates of how it will contribute to knowledge in the field should be included in the introduction.

Points to be considered in the materials and methods:

·         Integrity of the Research: The methods section describes the detailed methodology of the research, but does not provide a summary of the overall research design and objectives.

·         Emphasizing Relevance to the Literature: The Methods section does not provide context on how the research will contribute to the existing literature.

·         Rationalization of Methods: More rationalization of why the chosen methods were chosen could be added.

·         Evaluation of Data Analysis and Processing: More detail could be provided on data analysis and processing.

·         Validity and Reliability of Results: The methods used to verify the reliability and validity of the results of the research could be highlighted.

 

 

Points to be considered in the results:

·         Comments Detail: More explanation should be added to the results of the optimization schemes, detailing how each scheme contributed to specific objectives or what factors changed.

·         Comparisons and Analysis: More comparisons and analysis on the practical impact of the improvements and how they should be interpreted, in particular the contribution of economic benefits to the overall economic performance of the city.

·         Overall Significance of Results: Further clarify the practical relevance of the resulting optimization schemes and how they can be interpreted in terms of urban planning or logistics management, including what policies or practices these results could lead to.

Points to be considered in the discussion:

·         Meaning and Impact of the Results: The discussion section should further elaborate on the applicability of the results in the field of urban planning and logistics management and their contribution to existing policies/strategies.

·         Comparison of Results: There should be more discussion on how the improvements can be compared to other similar studies or related to other optimization studies in the literature.

·         Limitations of the Model: The impact of assumptions and limitations in the research on the interpretation and application of the results should be addressed, especially further consideration of the generalizability of the results.

·         Methodological Improvements: The discussion section should address how the model could be improved or whether alternative methods should be used, with further discussion on the advantages and limitations of GA in particular.

Points to be considered in the conclusion:

·         Summary of Results: The main findings should be presented in a concise manner, the optimization objectives achieved and the overall impact should be clearly explained.

·         Recommendations for Future Research: Based on the results, specific recommendations for future research should be presented.

·         Practical Implementation Tips: Practical tips that can be useful to planners and decision-makers should be provided with the information obtained.

·         Reliability and Generalizability of the Model: There should be further discussion on the reliability and generalizability of the results.

·         Technological and Methodological Improvements: Suggestions to focus on technological and methodological improvements for future research should be presented.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled: ‘Layout optimisation of the logistics and warehouse land based on a multi-objective genetic algorithm--Taking Wuhan city as an example’ proposes a model for optimising land planning for warehousing and logistics services. The article is well written both academically and linguistically. The article has a formulated objective and a method to achieve it. The strengths of the article include a very thorough description of the model and the entire procedure of the modelling undertaken. Verifying the model using a concrete, real-world example of data from Wuhan is also valuable. 

In terms of how the article could be improved, I find it a little lacking in demonstrating why the model proposed by the authors is better than other models.

There are a lot of models in the literature, including multi-criteria analysis. The model proposed in this article seems to be very useful practically; only the authors should compare it more with other models and show potential users the advantage of their model in obtaining practical results over other models. Some arguments are made in the ‘Discussion’ section, but an overview of the models is missing at the beginning of the article. As this is a scientific article, it should have had many more references, especially concerning the literature discussing multi-criteria models in general, including those used in process and logistics infrastructure planning. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept after minor revision to this revised version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.