Humanitarian Logistics Prioritization Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Verdict: "Humanitarian Logistics Prioritization Models: A Systematic Literature Review"

Summary

The paper presents a systematic literature review focusing on the application of prioritization models in humanitarian logistics. It comprehensively categorizes and analyzes existing research, identifying key trends, gaps, and proposing future research directions. The study uses the PRISMA methodology to ensure a thorough and structured review process.

Strengths

1. Comprehensive Methodology: The use of the PRISMA methodology adds rigor to the review process, ensuring that the analysis is systematic and comprehensive.

2. Detailed Categorization: The categorization of the articles based on disaster type, lifecycle phase, decision-making level, and problem type provides a clear structure and helps in identifying specific gaps in the literature.

3. Identification of Gaps: The paper successfully identifies under-researched areas, such as tactical decision-making and inventory management, and highlights the need for more studies on slow-onset and human-induced disasters.

4. Future Research Directions: The authors provide clear and actionable recommendations for future research, which can guide scholars in addressing the identified gaps.

Weaknesses

1. Limited Scope of Data Sources: The review only includes articles from Scopus and Web of Science. Including additional databases could provide a more comprehensive view of the existing literature.

2. Emphasis on Natural Disasters: While the paper identifies the prevalence of studies on natural disasters, it could delve deeper into why human-induced and slow-onset disasters are less studied and provide more specific suggestions on how to address this imbalance.

3. Lack of Practical Insights: The review focuses heavily on academic research without sufficiently addressing how these findings can be practically applied in real-world humanitarian logistics operations.

Verdict

The paper "Humanitarian Logistics Prioritization Models: A Systematic Literature Review" is a well-structured and insightful review that significantly contributes to the field of humanitarian logistics. It systematically categorizes existing research, identifies important gaps, and provides clear directions for future studies. However, to further strengthen its contributions, the review could benefit from including a wider range of data sources and offering more practical insights for real-world applications.

Overall, this paper is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of humanitarian logistics and serves as a solid foundation for future research endeavors. 

Recommendation

Accept with Minor Revisions: I recommend accepting the paper with minor revisions to address the identified weaknesses, particularly by expanding the data sources and providing more practical implications of the research findings.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

 

Comment 1: Limited Scope of Data Sources: The review only includes articles from Scopus and Web of Science. Including additional databases could provide a more comprehensive view of the existing literature.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. The Scopus and Web of Science databases were selected due to the configuration of the largest catalogues of indexed journals, according to Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016). This explanation and citation has also been added to the text, in line 110-111, page 3.

 

The following reference has been added to the manuscript:

• Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. Scien-tometrics 2016, 106, 213–228, doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.

 

Additionally, a snowballing method was employed, resulting in the inclusion of five additional articles in the sample. The results were updated to reflect the inclusion of these new articles.

• Jamali, A.; Ranjbar, A.; Heydari, J.; Nayeri, S. A Multi-Objective Stochastic Programming Model to Con-figure a Sustainable Humanitarian Logistics Considering Deprivation Cost and Patient Severity. Ann Oper Res 2022, 319, doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04014-2.
• Seraji, H.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Asian, S.; Kaur, H. An Integrative Location-Allocation Model for Humanitarian Logistics with Distributive Injustice and Dissatisfaction under Uncertainty. Ann Oper Res 2022, 319, doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04003-5.
• Soghrati Ghasbeh, S.; Pourmohammadzia, N.; Rabbani, M. Equitable Post-Disaster Relief Distribution: A Robust Multi-Objective Multi-Stage Optimization Approach. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 2022, 12, doi:10.1108/JHLSCM-10-2021-0103.
• Liu, H.; Sun, Y.; Pan, N.; Li, Y.; An, Y.; Pan, D. Study on the Optimization of Urban Emergency Supplies Distribution Paths for Epidemic Outbreaks. Comput Oper Res 2022, 146, doi:10.1016/j.cor.2022.105912.
• Mahtab, Z.; Azeem, A.; Ali, S.M.; Paul, S.K.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M. Multi-Objective Robust-Stochastic Op-timisation of Relief Goods Distribution under Uncertainty: A Real-Life Case Study. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations and Logistics 2022, 9, 241–262, doi:10.1080/23302674.2021.1879305.

 

Comment 2: Emphasis on Natural Disasters: While the paper identifies the prevalence of studies on natural disasters, it could delve deeper into why human-induced and slow-onset disasters are less studied and provide more specific suggestions on how to address this imbalance.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have incorporated the explanation and citation provided by Kunz and Reiner (2012) regarding the challenges of accessing areas affected by man-made disasters. This addition can be found in the text, specifically on lines 559-561, page 16.

Additionally, a new paragraph discussing why slow-onset disasters are less studied has been included, as per your suggestion. This addition can be found on lines 564-568, page 17.

Furthermore, we have highlighted these gaps as potential areas for future research opportunities in the conclusions section, specifically on lines 634-638, page 18. Thank you for bringing these points to our attention.

The following reference has been added to the manuscript:

• Kunz, N.; Reiner, G. A Meta-Analysis of Humanitarian Logistics Research. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 2012, 2.

 

Comment 3: Lack of Practical Insights: The review focuses heavily on academic research without sufficiently addressing how these findings can be practically applied in real-world humanitarian logistics operations.The article is clearly presented and written.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We appreciate the suggestion, which is well aligned with our article. We added a short paragraph in the conclusion section, lines 645-649, page 18.

 

Comment 4: The article is clearly presented and written. In fact, I consider a good quality work. I am positively in favor to accept this article with any reservation.

 

Response: We appreciate your comment. Thank you for the opportunity to resubmit our manuscript and improve its quality following your recommendations and those of the review team.

 

The changes are highlighted in yellow

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·       You should emphasize the need for prioritization models and the associated challenges more strongly in the introduction.

·       You should be more specific about the practical difficulties that can arise when implementing prioritization models in humanitarian logistics.

·       You should discuss the potential of existing models for other types of disasters in more detail.

·       A more in-depth discussion on the adaptability of the models to new situations would also be recommended.

·       Care should be taken to ensure that there are no Portuguese comments (page 3) or words (Figure 7) in the paper.

·       The image quality of Figure 1 could also be improved. If necessary, the figure should be redone.

·       In general, it is a well-written paper.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

 

Comment 1:  You should emphasize the need for prioritization models and the associated challenges more strongly in the introduction.

 

Response: We appreciate your comment and guidance provided. We've taken your feedback into account and made enhancements to the introduction section accordingly. Specifically, we've incorporated additional sentences in lines 55-60 on page 2 to underscore the critical importance of prioritization models and the challenges they entail. Thank you for pointing out this valuable aspect for improvement.

 

 

Comment 2: You should be more specific about the practical difficulties that can arise when implementing prioritization models in humanitarian logistics.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We've carefully considered your suggestion and have incorporated a brief paragraph in the introduction section, specifically in lines 74-78 on page 2, to address the practical difficulties that can arise when implementing prioritization models in humanitarian logistics.

 

Comment 3: You should discuss the potential of existing models for other types of disasters in more detail.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We add new paragraph explaning potential of existing models for other types of disasters, in line 547-554, page 16.

 

Comment 4:  A more in-depth discussion on the adaptability of the models to new situations would also be recommended.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We add a new paragraph in conclusions about adaptability of the models to new situations, in lines 650-656, page 18.

 

Comment 5:  Care should be taken to ensure that there are no Portuguese comments (page 3) or words (Figure 7) in the paper.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We did an English review of the entire text.

 

 

Comment 6:  The image quality of Figure 1 could also be improved. If necessary, the figure should be redone.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We redone Figure 1 to ensure improved image quality.

 

The changes are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your study. I thought it was a well-designed study in a popular topic. There are some minor revisions I can suggest. 

*At the end of the introduction, contributions can be highlighted. The research question is given but it will be better to state why this study is different from the others. It is already given briefly but I believe this part should be extended.

*In line 87, the sentence is written in bold punto. It should be checked. 

*There is a comment left in the line 100. 

*Figure 7 (Coloured classes should be given in  English.)

* In line 310, Ballou's classification needs a reference number (I think it is 18).

*Figure 9 is understandable when you read the text. However, i suggest putting label information on the x-axis. Or a different type of graph can be selected (like bubble charts or heat map)

*The conclusion can be extended to highlight the importance of the subject. Future studies can be pointed out etc. 

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

 

Comment 1: At the end of the introduction, contributions can be highlighted. The research question is given but it will be better to state why this study is different from the others. It is already given briefly but I believe this part should be extended.

 

Response: We appreciate your comment and guidance provided. We add a new paragraph in lines 88-91.

 

Comment 2: In line 87, the sentence is written in bold punto. It should be checked.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We did a format review of the entire text.

 

Comment 3: There is a comment left in the line 100.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We've removed the comment.

 

Comment 4: Figure 7 (Coloured classes should be given in  English.)

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We did an English review of the entire text.

 

Comment 5: In line 310, Ballou's classification needs a reference number (I think it is 18).

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We rewrite sentence in line 337-339 page 11, and add the reference number.

 

Comment 6: Figure 9 is understandable when you read the text. However, i suggest putting label information on the x-axis. Or a different type of graph can be selected (like bubble charts or heat map)

 

Response: Thank you for the comment, we redone Figure 9.

 

Comment 7: The conclusion can be extended to highlight the importance of the subject. Future studies can be pointed out etc..

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We add a paragraph in order to highlight the importance of the subject in lines 624-628 page 18. Also, we rewrite conclusions between lines 629-659 in order to to highlight research gaps and future studies.

 

The changes are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf