The Development, Implementation, and Application of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Framework to Evaluate Supply Chain Shortages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to introduce and apply a "probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)" framework specifically designed to evaluate supply chain shortages. Given how supply chains continue to face disruptions including but not limited to pandemics, geopolitical unresti and tariffs this turns out to be a significant area of study merit of a publication.

The paper focuses on quantitatively assessing shortage risk and this positions the paper as a potentially valuable tool for improving supply chain resilience.

Please note the following remarks:

In the abstract you refer to a previous paper possibly by the same authors but this is not properly cited just a title is presented is this a working paper? If not please provide the full details.

You also give an example in the abstract about drug shortages as an example. I am not aware of the field of study of the authors but could you provide some other examples.

Please improve the last sentence of the abstract as it stands it is very vague and does not summarize the contribution of the paper to the field.  FOr example such a reword:

"By providing a detailed shortage risk profile, clear importance measures, and quantified probabilities of supply chain failure, this study delivers actionable insights that equip decision-makers with robust tools to proactively mitigate and manage shortages.”

or maybe another option:

"Through the development of a shortage risk profile, importance measures, and quantified probabilities of supply chain failure, the study provides decision-makers with concrete, data-driven tools to anticipate vulnerabilities, strengthen resilience, and implement effective shortage-mitigation strategies"

I think that the authors get what I mean by these two examples.  I am sure that the authors have written abstracts before but I am going to outline the contents of the abstract very briefly here:

 Background / Motivation: Why the study is important?

 Objective / Gap: What problem does it solve?

 Methods: How was the research conducted?

Results: Key findings, ideally with quantitative indicators.

Contribution / Implications: Why it matters 

I find the sentence in the introduction a bit vague "The consequences of shortages can range from negligible to devastating" how can negligible or devastating be defined also is this the authors thought or from a reference. 

This is a very important note: please choose either present or past tense in paragraph two you say "proposed" and in the next paragraph you state "propose"

Line 49 you state "Edward Elson Kosasih and Alexandra Brintrup" to be consistent you can just say last names Kosasih and Brintrup.

Line 165 "We stored the input data for this program in Excel sheets," I cannot see the significance of this if the data are stored in excel sheets or r files. Is Excel a significant part of the methodology?

Note that I refer to Table 3 and Table 4 in table 4 you have the number 1.5 10+1 which I think is just 15!! why not state so because in the previous Table you have -44 not 4.4 10+1. 

You also have mixed use of e-5 or 10-5 please choose one standard.

In fıgure 14 the two colors are very close. Also this graph is poorly explained in text you just state "This graph determines the supply chains that do not meet the acceptability 335 criteria of supply failure set by the decision-makers" please elaborate how the acceptability criteria is determined. 

In the histograms from 15 to 17 the vertical bar reads density but if the width of the intervals is the same (and it looks so) you can just use frequency. And also if density is used the axis numbers should be less than 1 I guess?

Please also very important: Sections 6 and 7 simply state that you have not put to much effort into the paper after coming up with the technical details and plots. Expand in a very serious manner the last two sections.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript introduces SUPRA, a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) software tool designed to quantify the likelihood of supply chain shortages, with a focus on pharmaceutical drug supply chains. The study is timely and relevant, considering the increasing vulnerability of supply chains to disruptions.

The integration of fault tree methodology, network graph representation, and automated software implementation represents a valuable contribution. The manuscript is generally well-structured, methodologically rigorous, and aligned with the scope of Mathematics in applied modeling and risk assessment.

- While comprehensive, the review could be better structured thematically (probabilistic models, AI/ML approaches, hybrid methods,...) to improve readability.

- Some sources are referenced without critical comparison to SUPRA (DEMATEL-ANP, Bayesian models,....). A clearer articulation of how SUPRA outperforms or complements these approaches is needed.

- The description of the fault tree creation algorithm (section 3.3) is somewhat technical but could benefit from pseudocode simplification or a flowchart for broader accessibility.

- The paper largely focuses on pharmaceutical supply chains. While this is a strong case study, more discussion is needed on how SUPRA generalizes to other industries (electronics, food,...).

- Computational performance is mentioned (scaling to millions of rows), but no benchmarks or performance statistics (time complexity, runtime tests) are provided.

- The results are promising, but the validation strategy is unclear. How were failure probabilities or facility reliabilities estimated? Are they real-world data, simulated, or assumed?

- The importance measure results are presented but not deeply interpreted. Which facilities are consistently critical? How does this align with known pharmaceutical supply chain vulnerabilities?

- The mitigation analysis (section 5.2) is interesting but remains illustrative. A more quantitative cost-benefit evaluation would strengthen practical insights.

- Some figures (Figures 7–13) are not fully explained in the captions, limiting reader comprehension.

- Minor grammar and formatting issues ("with and withoutback-ups" → "with and without backups",...).

- The abstract could be improved by explicitly highlighting the main findings (e.g., “SUPRA reduced average failure probabilities by X% with backup facilities”).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Changes have been addressed thanks.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my comments.