An Improved Negotiation-Based Approach for Collecting and Sorting Operations in Waste Management and Recycling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the problem of optimal planning for collection, sorting, and recycling operations. The proposal is a negotiation-based approach using an auction mechanism for optimizing these operations. Two interdependent models are presented: one for waste collection by a logistics operator and the other for sorting operations at a recycling plant. These models are formulated as mixed-integer linear programming problems where costs associated with sorting and collection are to be minimized, respectively. Next, the authors describe the negotiation-based approach involving an auction where the logistics operator bids for collection time slots, and the recycling plant selects the optimal bid based on the integration of sorting and collection costs. This approach aims to achieve an optimization of the entire waste management process. Computational experiments are presented.

The thesis topic is interesting, but has the following problems.

1. The introduction section should clearly state the motivation/innovation.

2. What are the shortcomings of the existing research?

3. The experimental results lack the necessary comparisons.

4. The result graphs should use vector graphs instead of excel.

5. There is no obvious algorithmic innovation seen in the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The presentation of the article needs to be strengthened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposed a negotiation-based approach using an auction mechanism for optimizing the planning for collection, sorting, and recycling operations in the domain of waste management. The computational experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Here are some major concerns that the authors should address during revision.

1.     The authors should introduce the background briefly in the abstract, especially identifying the research gap to be fulfilled.

2.     The review of the negotiation-based approach is insufficient. The authors must survey how this approach was employed in the waste management task. What are the limitations of current approaches?

3.     Section 2.1 and Section 2.2: In the waste management task, uncertainty is one of the common issues to be considered. However, such uncertainty variable is missing in the problem statement.

4.     The negotiation scheme with an auction model is a classical algorithm. The authors should better highlight their main contributions when explaining this approach in Section 3. What is new here? Besides, the relevant publications should be strictly cited in Section 3.

5.     The experimental design is simple. The authors must supplement more results to support their findings.

6.     There lacks a comparison between the authors’ proposal and current methods.

7.     The discussion section is missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the publication is important and timely. The purpose of the research is formulated. The authors have presented the general concept of the research. However, I have several comments.

1. the key words are not chosen adequately to the content of the article.

2. the authors have given little indication of the research gap. As can be seen from the introduction (which is compiled together with the Literature Review ), the research presented in the article is a continuation of research previously presented by the authors in other publications. I don't know, perhaps in that publication more attention was paid to the work of other authors and the research gap. However, the article I am reviewing is an independent publication, and I miss the depth of this particular section. 

3 The authors write that collection and sorting of waste is important and what stages it consists of, but they do not write what technologies are currently in use, what research is being conducted on the organization of these processes, what are the determinants of the choice of specific solutions, what parameters are taken into account, etc. The section on waste collection and sorting is very general - these studies from the literature side need to be deepened. 

4 From a very general treatment of the issue of waste collection and sorting, the authors go straight to negotiations. The authors write about stakeholders, but do not explain who is a stakeholder, what research has been done in this area by various authors. Negotiations are also treated very generally. One can even say that the Authors wrote as they think it is but without thoroughly conducted research in this area. The element of theoretical-cognitive research is carried out in lines 98-122. 

5 The authors move very quickly into their research, but it is not clear why it was designed this way. It is not clear where the assumptions made in the research come from. How they and the methodology adopted relate to the existing body of literature. 

6. The research model is not sufficiently presented. There is a lack of justification of the parameters adopted in the model. The discussion of the research procedure is more didactic than scientific. 

7. The results are not comprehensively discussed. No discussion of the results. No limitations of the research and directions for further research. 

8. The conclusions presented are a repetition of the content from the abstract. Conclusions are basically absent. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The biggest problem with the paper is that there are no significant innovations to the algorithm. It is just simply that the new model does not fit with the theme of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English expression has improved a lot compared to before.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend accepting this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account my comments