Does Remanufacturing Always Benefit the Manufacturer and Hurt the Supplier?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica}The English is fairly good but needs careful proof-reading. I commented on some details up to line 105, and then stopped.
49: Remove “?”
51 and 53: Make proper question sentences or remove “?”.
Suggestion: use “integrated” instead of centralised and “separate” instead of decentralised, to avoid confusion.
53: behave / act, not behaviour
64: add “i.e., most consumers hold an old product”
76: compensate?
78: section 3 described the model
85: grammar, review sentence
92: a cannibalisation problem
93: on their own
103: say what EPR stands for and explain
105: good for
107: “at most unit new products”?
116: replace “flood”
142: replace “namely”
I do not feel confident enough to review the mathematical model in this article, and hence stopped at section 3.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving the original version of our manuscript titled “Does Remanufacturing Always Benefit The Manufacturer and Hurt The Supplier? (sustainability-457471)”. These comments helped us improve our manuscript. All comments and suggestions have been addressed in the attachment as follows. We hope this meets your requirements for a publication in the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Summary of the revisions:
First, we revised our paper according to all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, and our specific revisions are highlighted in red font in the revised version.
Second, we added some newly related literature in the revised version. Similarly, the supplemented context is presented in red font.
Finally, we proofread the paper thoroughly to improve the readability of our paper, and our specific revisions are highlighted in red font in the revised version.
We thank the editors and reviewers again for their valuable comments and suggestions and hope that you find that this version meets the high standards of the journal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving the original version of our manuscript titled “Does Remanufacturing Always Benefit The Manufacturer and Hurt The Supplier? (sustainability-457471)”. These comments helped us improve our manuscript. All comments and suggestions have been addressed in the attachment as follows. We hope this meets your requirements for a publication in the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Summary of the revisions:
First, we revised our paper according to all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, and our specific revisions are highlighted in red font in the revised version.
Second, we added some newly related literature in the revised version. Similarly, the supplemented context is presented in red font.
Finally, we proofread the paper thoroughly to improve the readability of our paper, and our specific revisions are highlighted in red font in the revised version.
We thank the editors and reviewers again for their valuable comments and suggestions and hope that you find that this version meets the high standards of the journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
“Does Remanufacturing Always Benefit the Manufacturer and Hurt the Supplier”
This paper presents two models that investigate the remanufacturing operations in the centralized and decentralized system.
A list of major issues to be addressed is given below:
1. What is the contribution of this work? There are lots of similar studies that have done the same research. What makes this study unique? Overall, the literature gap is not that clear in current manuscript which needs to be strengthened. Thus, authors are therefore strongly encouraged to more clearly present/state the novelty of this work compared to existing state of the art methods.
2. The figures are not in publication-quality and informative.
3. The dataset employed for the study needs to be described and discussed much better.
4. The generalizability of the results is not discussed in more depth. I would specifically recommend interpreting the insights of the case study. Moreover, I recommend adding a separate section for the results.
Overall, I congratulate the authors for their ambition and what they have achieved so far. However, I also think there is still some room for improvement as well. Good luck with the article.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving the original version of our manuscript titled “Does Remanufacturing Always Benefit The Manufacturer and Hurt The Supplier? (sustainability-457471)”. These comments helped us improve our manuscript. All comments and suggestions have been addressed in the attachment as follows. We hope this meets your requirements for a publication in the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Summary of the revisions:
First, we revised our paper according to all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, and our specific revisions are highlighted in red font in the revised version.
Second, we added some newly related literature in the revised version. Similarly, the supplemented context is presented in red font.
Finally, we proofread the paper thoroughly to improve the readability of our paper, and our specific revisions are highlighted in red font in the revised version.
We thank the editors and reviewers again for their valuable comments and suggestions and hope that you find that this version meets the high standards of the journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
n/a
