Performance and Intrusiveness of Crowdshipping Systems: An Experiment with Commuting Cyclists in The Netherlands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
State of the art is not well covered. Authors work is interesting because it is with the bike, but these problems have been a study in several approaches like taxis, personal vehicles and others. It will be interesting that authors check the differences.
Also missing more details about the proposal and compare this to other cases. What about matching routes algorithms approaches?
At conclusions authors state (line 333-334)
Rarely does scientific research focus on the mutual influence between supply aspects and crowdshipping platform design. This paper takes a first yet preliminary step to analyze the relations between these two important pillars of crowdshipping systems by means of real-world experiments.
This is not true
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study focuses on the performance and intrusiveness of crowdshipping systems in the Netherlands. I think the paper fits well the scope of the journal and addresses an important subject. However, a number of revisions are required before the paper can be considered for publication. There are quite a few weak segments in the paper. These weak segments of the paper must be strengthened. Below please find more specific comments:
*Page 1: The abstract can be expanded a bit. The authors are encouraged to highlight the novelty of this work to the state-of-the-art and its practical implications.
*Page 1 line 12: Is there any rationale in capitalizing “The” in “The Hague”?
*Page 1 line 15: Please define “GPS” (although many readers should be familiar with this term).
*Page 1: “industrial communities are rethinking the way we organize production, transportation, and logistics” – this statement has to be supported by the recent and relevant references that discussed various concepts that can improve production, transportation, and logistics. The authors are recommended to acknowledge the following studies that have been recently published in the Sustainability journal:
González-Sánchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A.M. and García-Muiña, F.E., 2020. Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(6), p.2459.
Theophilus, O., Dulebenets, M.A., Pasha, J., Abioye, O.F. and Kavoosi, M., 2019. Truck scheduling at cross-docking terminals: a follow-up state-of-the-art review. Sustainability, 11(19), p.5245.
Kiani Mavi, R., Goh, M., Kiani Mavi, N., Jie, F., Brown, K., Biermann, S. and A Khanfar, A., 2020. Cross-Docking: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 12(11), p.4789.
de Carvalho, N.L., Vieira, J.G.V., da Fonseca, P.N. and Dulebenets, M.A., 2020. A Multi-Criteria Structure for Sustainable Implementation of Urban Distribution Centers in Historical Cities. Sustainability, 12(14), p.5538.
Li, X., Kan, H., Hua, X. and Wang, W., 2020. Simulation-Based Electric Vehicle Sustainable Routing with Time-Dependent Stochastic Information. Sustainability, 12(6), p.2464.
*Page 1: I would suggest to expand the introduction section a bit to provide more preliminaries to the readers before going directly to the literature review section.
*Page 3: At the end of the literature review section, please summarize the major gaps in the state-of-the-art and highlight how they will be addressed in this study.
*Page 4: In would be nice to see the legend under Figure 2 to show what points A, B, and C represent.
*Page 5: Did you create Figure 3 yourself? If not, please provide the source.
*Page 7: Please provide a discussion that justifies the selection of indicators that were adopted in this study.
*Page 10: The conclusions section should be expanded. More specifically, please expand on limitations of this study and how they will be addressed as a part of future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper aims to analyse performance and intrusiveness of crowdshipping systems, making an experiment with commuting cyclists in the Netherlands.
The paper is interesting and quite original. The literature review provides the information needed to frame the issue and methodology is well explained.
I would like to ask the authors to explain better and deepen the relation between the marginal system effectiveness and the marginal level of intrusiveness (paragraph No. 4.2).
In the paragraph “5. Conclusions” I would suggest to include some considerations about the practical implications of the obtained results. For example, the authors could discuss about the relations among effectiveness of the system, complexity of rules, level of intrusiveness, willingness to participate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I keep some opinion authors did not answer proper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript as well as the responses.
Please may we kindly request to specify which point we have not properly addressed. We would be happy to make revisions accordingly.
Kind regards,
Xiao Lin, on behalf of the authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors took seriously my previous comments and made the required revisions in the manuscript. The quality and presentation of the manuscript have been improved. Therefore, I recommend acceptance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript and the relating responses.
Kind regards,
Xiao Lin, on behalf of the authors
