A Review of the Criteria and Methods of Reverse Logistics Supplier Selection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The approach to describe the research sequence „logistics to RL and finally to RL supplier selection” is very good, logic, sticks to the whole paper and is consequently implemented in the entire article. Well done.
I would like to ask the authors for enhancing the description of the research method, namely including a few elements in this part(lines 198-204):
- search terms – in title, abstract and keywords (jointly or only one of the three elements should include the search terms? Please clarify)
- this way of the searching – Boolean logic – was based on some procedure reported in the literature?
Lines 230-232 – The countries are listed by use of only the affiliation of the first author – please divide those two issues – make the separate list by the origin country of author(or affiliation of author maybe would be more precise), and the country as related to a topic (sometimes the paper is about some particular country and sometimes not). I would be more transparent than the current version.
Line 244 – In Table 3, although the authors used the references, please add one column with a year of the publication – it would show if the number of citations depends on year or not – it is partly shown by „average citations/year” but not precisely – maybe there is some period of time generating more citations than the other (like for example last five years or maybe not).
The rest of the Results part is very well-done, clear and very valuable for the reader. I am impressed by the flow of the text, clarity and deep analysis made by the authors.
Excellent „flow” of the text is undoubtedly a strong point of the proposal.
Some minor technical issues regarding the text:
- Line 66- please replace „hot” by some another, a more scientific word
- Line 95 – I think the question mar is unnecessary
- Figure 1 – please change the x-axis and place the dates in chronological order, not reverse chronological order
I think the whole paper is very good and publishable. I indicate the “minor revision” only because I trust that the authors will address my comments, and I do not have to see the text once again.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: search terms – in title, abstract and keywords (jointly or only one of the three elements should include the search terms? Please clarify)
Response 1: Line 201 - Add a sentence to explain: (at least one of the three elements should include the search terms)
Point 2: this way of the searching – Boolean logic – was based on some procedure reported in the literature?
Response 2: Line 199 - This way of the searching is based on an article, and this reference is noted at the beginning of this sentence now
Point 3: Lines 230-232 – The countries are listed by use of only the affiliation of the first author – please divide those two issues – make the separate list by the origin country of author(or affiliation of author maybe would be more precise), and the country as related to a topic (sometimes the paper is about some particular country and sometimes not). I would be more transparent than the current version
Response 3: Line 243 – A new table “Number of articles for particular countries” is added. It shows the number of articles studied on a particular country. A brief description of the table is supplemented in Line 235.
Point 4: Line 244 – In Table 3, although the authors used the references, please add one column with a year of the publication – it would show if the number of citations depends on year or not – it is partly shown by „average citations/year” but not precisely – maybe there is some period of time generating more citations than the other (like for example last five years or maybe not).
Response 4: Line 248 – A new column “Year of publication” has been added to Table 4 (originally Table 3)
Point 5: Line 66- please replace „hot” by some another, a more scientific word
Response 5: Line 66 - Use “forefront” instead of “hot”
Point 6: Line 95 – I think the question mar is unnecessary
Response 6: Line 94 – Delete the question, and the additional content is as follows: analyze and study the RL supplier question.
Point 7: Figure 1 – please change the x-axis and place the dates in chronological order, not reverse chronological order
Response 7: Line 228 - Figure 1, x-axis is changed, the dates are placed in chronological order
Reviewer 2 Report
The article describes results of literature review published on Web of Science (WOS) database, focused on reverse logistics supplier selection. Authors gradually present theoretical background, literature review framework and results of literature review in the individual stages of the process of RL supplier selection. I consider the overall concept and structure of the article to be correct.
I have two comments on the article:
- Chapter 4.2. Stage A: establish the selection criteria
The authors provide a relatively broad overview of the criteria used in the reviewed literature.
Except for classification of individual articles into theoretical approaches (sustainability, GSCM, CE), any classification of criteria for RL suppliers selection is missing.
Please add to this chapter an overview of the used individual criteria in the reviewed articles (similar to the overview of used decision making techniques in stages B and C) according to the authors' proposed system of their classification - criteria sorting by similarity into main groups and subgroups of criteria and determination of number of criteria in individual groups and subgroups (according to results of literature review).
- Chapter 5. Conclusions and discussions
In the conclusion, the results of the literature review are only briefly summarized. There is a lack of self-interpretation of the review results. I propose that the authors conclude, based on the results of literature review, what a suitable concept for RL supplier selection should look like.
I also propose, to add the authors' statement on how they will use the results of the presented review in their future research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Chapter 4.2. Stage A: establish the selection criteria
The authors provide a relatively broad overview of the criteria used in the reviewed literature.
Except for classification of individual articles into theoretical approaches (sustainability, GSCM, CE), any classification of criteria for RL suppliers selection is missing.
Please add to this chapter an overview of the used individual criteria in the reviewed articles (similar to the overview of used decision making techniques in stages B and C) according to the authors' proposed system of their classification - criteria sorting by similarity into main groups and subgroups of criteria and determination of number of criteria in individual groups and subgroups (according to results of literature review).
Response 1: Line 256-264: The criteria classification theory not mentioned before is supplemented in the article. According to the contents in the references, two new bases for the classification of standards are determined: Performance Dimensions and Firm's Requirements. Table 5 has been renamed "Theory of criteria classification" and the contents have been supplemented accordingly. (Details can be found in the revised text)
Point 2: Chapter 5. Conclusions and discussions
In the conclusion, the results of the literature review are only briefly summarized. There is a lack of self-interpretation of the review results. I propose that the authors conclude, based on the results of literature review, what a suitable concept for RL supplier selection should look like. I also propose, to add the authors' statement on how they will use the results of the presented review in their future research.
Response 2: Line 431 - A conclusion is added that begins with a systematic explanation of the concept for RL supplier selection. Besides, it mentioned what kind of help this review can provide for future research and provide a research idea in the future for reference.(Details can be found in the revised text)
