Integrated Optimization of Routing and Energy Management for Electric Vehicles in Delivery Scheduling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank You for the opportunity of reading this article. My general opinion about the article is positive.

General statements about the article:

-> article concerns a unified vehicle routing and energy management system for the logistics application of EVs.  So the topic of research is actual and desirable.

-> The article content suite to Energies journal scope

-> the abstract is adequate to article content

-> Keywords are correctly proposed.

-> Methods are clearly introduced.

-> the article results are based on simulations.

-> Literature review is based on 42 positions. The literature is adequate to article content and sufficient of them are correct.

-> quality of figures and tables is sufficient.

 

 

I indicate the one issue that requires additional clarification, minor issues:

#1

The results in the article are well presented. This is a strong element of the article but there is a lack of discussion. Thus please add a separate section with discussion.

 

#2

Please reconsider matching Table 1 and Table 2. They are the same in point “Weighting coefficient database …” but for different issues. According to me, they should be connected to one table with adequate clarification in the text of the footer.

 

#3

In article, a lot of abbreviations and symbols are used. So please add a list with the most important of them. It will increase the quality of the presentation.

#4

Please also revise the manuscript regarding the personal way of addressing in the text. Please avoid and replace we" or "our" with the impersonal manner of addressing. The text will sound much more professional.

Technical issues:

-> Please use the actual temple of Energies journal

-> Please add a data availability statement.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Referee report for the manuscript entitled “Integrated optimization of routing and energy management for electric vehicles in delivery scheduling”

 

The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic—energy issues concerning electric vehicles—that is relevant to the journal and academic, policy, and professional audiences. Despite the manuscript in general written well, it requires some revisions to bring its calibre up to be considered for publication in this leading journal of the field. The following issues need to be addressed.

 

• Clearly state the aim of the study at Abstract and Introduction of the manuscript. I do not believe development of a system development can be the aim of a research article, rather it should be addressing an important gap in energy management in EVs and in order to address this issue investigation of solutions that includes a system proposal. This will give the study a clear focus for the background, analysis and findings sections, and also will improve the readability for the for the readers.
• Literature review section needs consolidation. Incorporate some background information to EVs, its energy and management issues. The following article along with others will be useful for this.

Foley, B., Degirmenci, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2020). Factors affecting electric vehicle uptake: Insights from a descriptive analysis in Australia. Urban Science, 4(4), 57.

• Include a Study Design or Methodology section to elaborate the methodological approach. At the moment this info is scattered around the different section of the manuscript and would be good to contain in one place, especially for the replicability of the study by other scholars.
• The next issue is about the language; a careful language editing is necessary to improve the flow and readability of the manuscript.
• The last important issue of the paper is that it does not have a discussion section and conclusion section is extremely limited in length and depth, and need further development to clearly address the ‘so what’ question for research, policy and practice.

 

Good luck at the revision work to improve the calibre of the study.

 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors addressed most of my comments, it can be accepted for publication now.