A Roadmap Approach to Enhancing ESG and Operational Performance in Road Freight Logistics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study aims to identify and systematize ESG-related critical performance factors in road logistics by combining a literature review with an analysis of sustainability reports from Brazilian companies in the sector.
Please refer below for my comments.
The title does not accurately reflect the content of the research. It’s more to systematic literature review.
What is the period of study included for the systematic literature review?
Is the four-point scale supported by the past studies? In fact, five-point scale is more common. Please justify.
Please include the demographic of the 17 specialists in this study.
More statistical analyses should be included and elaborated in this research.
The references are relevant and up to date.
The significance of this study should be presented.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback on my article. Attached you will find a point-by-point response to all the feedback from all the reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) The title must reflect that it is a review paper clearly
2) As the PRISMA framework was followed. The conditions and guidelines of the same must be represented, and condition adopted must be given.
3) Technical novelty not reflected in the manuscript
4) Provide a review of literature much descriptive and claerly
5) No of references and the literature selected for PRISMA framework is very minimum
6) Data collection methodology must be clearly reflected in a flow chart or process chart
7) The discussion must be supported with a case study reflecting how the Integrated ESG Assessment Model for Road Freight Logistics and compare the Same with NON Integrated ESG Assessment Model for Road Freight Logistics.
8) Add scope for future study and Limitations
9) Figure 2 must be supported with more interpretation and argument
10) English needs some improvement
6) Try to refine the framework present it properly
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIf minor English editing is carried out, it will be good
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback on my article. Attached you will find a point-by-point response to all the feedback from all the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a timely and well-structured integrated ESG assessment model tailored to road freight logistics in the Brazilican context. The use of a monitoring panel grounded in clearly defined critical performance indicators is a notable strength, offering practical relevance for the sector. The paper effectively bridges sustainability theory and operational decision-making, and its focus on ESG integration adds value to the growing logistics and transportation sector. Overall, the paper is original, methodologically sound, and provides meaningful insights for both researchers and practitioners.
A few remarks:
line 12 in the sector this is road freight logistics but we can be more specific
the choice of Brazil is perhaps because the authors are located there or have extensive expertise to interpret the documents studied in the paper but this needs to be made clear either in the intro or the abstract.
line 37 Gross Domestic Product is used in its long form but before it is used as an acronym once first using it in the long form you may continue as an acronym as most readers are aware of this.
it is provided that the transport sector represents 12 % of gdp for EU but no such comparison is made for the Brazilian sector why? If we are introducing the readers to this sector and focusing on the Brazilian market then we should give some corresponding numbers for both markets and set the stage for the analysis to come. ALso this section can benefit from the use of some graphs and tables that quickly draw us into the sector if we are not familiar and also aestheticlaly please the reader. For example the age of the fleet being 12 years how does this compare to the world? And why does it cause so many social problems you have a citation but maybe you should separate and find few citations for each propblem.
line 84 85 you explain well the methods of the paper. However in reference to the problems stated before such as pollution and social doesn't your work also help in terms of managing these problems? This can be beefed up both in the intro and the implications section.
Very important note: lines 94 97 set the stage for the methods but this is just a listing of the three sections to come. While the three research stages are clearly identified, this section would benefit from further elaboration. In particular, the authors are encouraged to provide more detail on the objectives, procedures, and outputs of each stage (SLR, sustainability report analysis, and model development), as well as to clarify how these stages are sequentially "linked" and "jointly" contribute to the development of the proposed ESG decision-support model.
ALso another important methodological problem: Author(s) seem to act as expert consultants in the development of the proposed model (I cannot verify who thjey are and why they posses the skills needed), this methodological choice should be explicitly acknowledged and justified. The paper would benefit from a clear explanation of how author–expert involvement is methodologically grounded (e.g., expert-based research, design science, or action research) and how objectivity, replicability, and bias control were ensured.
Section 2.1 starts as a general liyterature review paper by Prısma and readers are used to some graphs created by PRISM software which I see in other review papers. In most review papers some plotys are provided on the topics and countries showing research links. ALso some numerical tables about the number of articles per year. Also in other lt review type research the years of research are bounded in my latest review that I reviews it was post 2020-2025 here I cannot see any bound of time is it from eternity to 2025? Probably not so a relevant time frame had better be specified. This paper is not positioned solely as a review but this part can be modified and expanded maybe by 1 2 pages to make the paper more attractive and receive citations. Also in this regard " a literature review " tag might be added to the title or keywords to receive some credit for this section as well.
line 123 126 again the same problem as GDP the acronym is defined after the first use ISE
line 131 a cleaner version of the sentence "A total of 19 companies, representing a range of firm sizes, were selected based on their publication of sustainability reports in the 2022–2023 period."
line 163 "whether they worked with road logistics" this should possibly be a screening question if so please identify it as so
The use of the “TAKTIK tool” is insufficiently documented. If this tool is a proprietary or internally developed platform, the authors must explicitly state this, explain its role in the research process, and justify its use scientifically. If it is an established tool, appropriate references must be provided.
same problem with ghg it is used 10 times but I believe the explanation comes the third time
Final word even if the paper is wonderfully written the conclusion is weak. And it includes as usual imnplications, short summary of the accomplishments of the paper and limitations in one paragraph each. The second paragraph is a further research note but the final paragraph starts with another limitation is as if the paragraph before was one limitation . It is always safge to first summarize the conclusions and use separate sections with 2 3 paragraphs each for limitations and future research.
Good luck to the authors
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback on my article. Attached you will find a point-by-point response to all the feedback from all the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved and revised the manuscript based on the given comments. Hence, I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions and considerations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Major improvement needed. There's still a research gap not well presented with supporting references. It is not very clear.
2) The overall process of the study was not well presented, and the overall methodology must be presented with a process chart
3) Figures 3 and 4 are not well presented. It looks just feeded in the tool, and the output was taken and presented without well interpretation
4) Discussion needs to be completely improvised
5) How does this study help the researcher and other stakeholders?
6) What is the outcome and your suggestion to different stakeholders based on the study?
7) The conclusion must reflect the outcome of the findings it should not reflect the general observations.
8) No of references cited is very low as this is a study based on SLR
9) Linkage of ESG with SDG is missing
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIf minor English editing is carried out, it will be good. Still, English needs improvement
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the continued opportunity to revise and further improve our manuscript. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript “Integrated ESG Assessment Model for Road Freight Logistics: A Monitoring Panel Based on Critical Performance Indicators” renamed “A roadmap approach to enhancing ESG and operational performance in road freight logistics”. We have carefully addressed all remaining reviewer comments and editorial requests raised in this second review round in the attached point-by-point response document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsALl the revisions have been addressed thank you very much.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions and considerations.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Figure three needs improvement
2) Still, the interpretation and discussion need improvement
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIf minor English editing is carried out, it will be good. Still, English needs improvement
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the opportunity to further revise and improve our manuscript. Em anexo você encontra os ajustes ponto a ponto e também o artigo revisado.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
