Impact of Facility Location on the Financial Performance of Integrated and Distributed LVL Production in Subtropical Eastern Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the manuscript was well-written and of interest to the readers. However, the following changes must be made.

The introduction must be expanded to provide sufficient background information for this study. For example, what did studies form other countries find? What operation research did counter authors consider? How did these studies provide a foundation for this manuscript? What distinguished this manuscript from other studies?

Figures must be rearranged and formatted correctly. Captions for Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 are misplaced and led to confusion. Tables need to be rearranged so they are on the same page.

The first two paragraphs in the discussion section are redundant and are more appropriate for the conclusion rather than discussion. Remove or edit. Figure 6 should be a part of the results.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It will be better the analysed scenario presented in the graph. It is the more accounting presentation than modeling of logistic models.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written and organized. The topic is of moderate general research interest since it is focused in a specific region of a country, but the results are of practical use, which is something valuable.

In general I find low detail in some important topics as the authors rely in the information contained in previous publications, because this work is considered by them as an extension of these previous works:

-         * The model used for analysis is not described, although the authors indicate that the information is contained in previous publications; this happens also in the explanation of the origin of some important data as costs, etc. for which the author address to other previous analysis. In my opinion the model should be presented and explained, including the mathematical expressions and considerations used, at least to a extent in which the reader can understand its main features without having to read previous works. Also its novelty or advantage compared with other possible methods available should be explained, as it is the basis of the work presented. Then for more details the reader can be addressed to those other publications, but not relying all to them.

-          * Although it is explained in the discussion it is important that the authors indicate clearly in the introduction and in the methods section why the work presented is different from other previous author’s works, and which is its novelty and added utility compared with them, and with other possible similar works.

On the other hand sometimes the explanations are too long and difficult to follow although correct, I would recommend to summarize more if possible, for example using more tables or figures.

More in detail. Texts that require further explanations or corrections in my opinion:

Line 67. Is it the model what what extended (i.e. modified or enhanced for this new purpose) or is the model used as it was defined but in a wider analysis including other situations?

Paragraph lines 64-79. Which are the differences or added analysis performed in this paper that improve the knowledge provided in references 27-28?. It is important to know how important, and useful, is the new information related to the previously published on the same topic.

Paragraph lines 119-128. If the conclusion of the explanation is that no spatial information is available, please explain why the OR model used is important in such case.

Line 135, use colon after the word “process”.

Paragraph lines 265-270. Please indicate the possible uses for the LVL analysed as the product described has a short length, and this is something important in LVL members, that are used in many occasions as beam elements. Please indicate if its effective use would require further processing, such as finger-jointing, and if so how this can affect to the analysis performed in general terms as far as possible.

Results chapter starting at Line 301. It would be maybe necessary to illustrate the model use including an example of its detailed quantitative use for one of the scenarios, maybe if in this chapter is not fitting well it could be included in an annex. This will allow a better understanding of the process followed and also would allow, if needed, the analysis to be assessed and followed by an expert using the model information.

Figs 2-5 must indicate in the caption that are referring to the integrated production option.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments.