Systematic Literature Review in Reshoring Strategies 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Your paper addresses an important topic such as reshoring. I found interesting that you tried to match this topic with an up-to-date issue for managers that are the Industry 4.0 technologies.

However, I believe that your study lacks in identifying a strong rationale for conducting a SLR. While it is true that more research is needed in that field of research, some other thematic should be included. In fact in the title you wrote "relocation strategies" and not "reshoring strategy". What about, for instance, with the phenomenon of nearshoring? Moreover, recently many sholars also discussed about the so-called "friendshoring". This elements should be included.

In addition, many of the cited studies are not very recent. There are many studies published in 2023 that addressed the thematic of relocation strategies and supply chain management and resilience. For instance, this one has been published at the beginning of the current year --> Faggioni, F., Rossi, M. V., & Sestino, A. (2023). Supply Chain Resilience in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Qualitative Analysis from Scholarly and Managerial Perspectives. Int. J. Bus. Manag, 18(1), 129-146. You can check this paper and other similar to this one to enrich your study. I understood that you conducted your review between 30/01/2020 to 08/02/2020, but to publish a review in 2023 more recent references should be added.

Finally, conclusion section should be expanded and enriched by adding more implications for managers and the academia, along with the study limitations and suggestion for future research. I would suggest to split this section into "discussion and implication" and finally "conclusion, limitations, and future research avenues". Finally, in both sections you should compared existing research with your findings in order to enhance the originality of your study.

Good luck!

There are some minor typos in this study that can be easily addressed with a light proof-reading.

Author Response

Dear,

We would like to express our sincere appreciation for reviewing our manuscript titled "Systematic Literature Review in Relocation Strategies 4.0," submitted for consideration to the journal "Logistics." In this letter, we aim to address the revisions made to the manuscript, point by point, and respond to the valuable comments provided by the reviewers.

First and foremost, we would like to extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable contributions in improving our work. Their suggestions and observations have been immensely helpful and have allowed us to strengthen and enhance the quality of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all the reviewers' suggestions and incorporated all the necessary changes into the manuscript, "Systematic Literature Review in Relocation Strategies 4.0." We have meticulously addressed each of the points raised by the reviewers and made the appropriate adjustments to ensure that all requests were addressed.

Furthermore, we have marked all the revisions using the "Track Changes" function in MS Word, enabling the editors and reviewers to easily identify the changes made and review them within the proper context.

We firmly believe that the revisions made have significantly enhanced the clarity and overall contribution of the manuscript.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers and the editorial team for their time and dedication in evaluating our manuscript. We sincerely hope that the revisions made have met the expectations of the reviewers and the journal, "Logistics."

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

The usage of abbreviations, such as SLR, should be expanded when they are first introduced in the text. In this case, SLR stands for [expand the abbreviation]. Additionally, it is important to denote 'Industry 4.0' with a capital 'I'.

Introduction:

The introduction section should include the following elements in the given order:

1. Background and Context: Provide an overview of the background and context relevant to the research topic.
2. Research Gap and Rationale: Identify the existing gap in the literature and explain the rationale for conducting the research.
3. Research Objective and/or Hypothesis: Clearly state the research objective and/or hypothesis that will be addressed in the study.
4. Methodology and Approach: Describe the methodology and approach used to conduct the research.
5. Scope and Limitations: Define the scope of the study and outline its limitations.
6. Novelty and Contribution: Highlight the novelty and contribution of the research to the existing body of knowledge.
7. Structure of the Paper: Provide a brief overview of the paper's structure and how the sections are organized.

Please ensure that each element is presented as a separate paragraph. The introduction section should be concise, limited to 1.5-2 pages at most. To support your arguments, refer to relevant articles from this journal, such as "Food Logistics 4.0: Opportunities and Challenges." Please verify the abbreviation on line 117, which should be SLR.

Material and Methods:

To enhance reader comprehension, it would be beneficial to include a diagram illustrating the article filtering process. This diagram should demonstrate how the initial 1048 documents were screened to ultimately arrive at the final 43 documents.

Results and Discussion:

It is necessary to have a separate section for Results and Discussion, which is currently missing. Some information mentioned in the Material and Methods section should be moved to this new section for proper presentation and analysis.

Recap of the Main Points:

The conclusion should begin by briefly restating the main points and objectives of the review paper. This recap serves as a reminder to the reader of the key aspects covered in the paper.

Conclusion:

The conclusion section should include the following elements in the given order:

1. Summary of Findings: Provide a concise summary of the main findings obtained from the research.
2. Addressing the Research Question or Objective: Discuss how the research has addressed the initial research question or objective.
3. Discussion of Key Themes or Patterns: Analyze and discuss the key themes or patterns that emerged from the research.
4. Implications and Applications: Explore the implications and applications of the findings in practical or theoretical contexts.
5. Limitations and Future Directions: Identify the limitations of the study and propose possible directions for future research.
6. Overall Conclusion: Present a concluding statement that summarizes the key points discussed and provides a closing remark.

Ensure that these elements are included in the conclusion section, as they are currently missing from the existing text.

Top of Form

Use of English language is fine.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to express our sincere appreciation for reviewing our manuscript titled "Systematic Literature Review in Relocation Strategies 4.0," submitted for consideration to the journal "Logistics." In this letter, we aim to address the revisions made to the manuscript, point by point, and respond to the valuable comments provided by the reviewers.

First and foremost, we would like to extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable contributions in improving our work. Their suggestions and observations have been immensely helpful and have allowed us to strengthen and enhance the quality of the manuscript.

We have carefully considered all the reviewers' suggestions and incorporated all the necessary changes into the manuscript, "Systematic Literature Review in Relocation Strategies 4.0." We have meticulously addressed each of the points raised by the reviewers and made the appropriate adjustments to ensure that all requests were addressed.

Furthermore, we have marked all the revisions using the "Track Changes" function in MS Word, enabling the editors and reviewers to easily identify the changes made and review them within the proper context.

We firmly believe that the revisions made have significantly enhanced the clarity and overall contribution of the manuscript.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers and the editorial team for their time and dedication in evaluating our manuscript. We sincerely hope that the revisions made have met the expectations of the reviewers and the journal, "Logistics."

Best regards,

Ingridi Bortolaso

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate the revisions made that perfectly match my previous suggestions.

I wish you good luck with the remainder of the review process.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased to state that no further comments or revisions are required from my end. Your thoroughness and attention to detail are commendable, and I am confident that the manuscript is now in excellent shape for its next stage of evaluation.