A Cross-Channel Return Policy in a Green Dual-Channel Supply Chain Considering Spillover Effect
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, your paper is a pioneering study in the field of dual-channel green supply chain. The paper is well written and coherent, uses up-to-date references declaring the importance of the research in a global view. The paper fulfils the criteria of the scientific research paper.
It is evident, that a lot of calculations were done to achieve the results, however, I would recommend to reduce the number of equations presented in the manuscript (if possible), not all of them are necessary to understand the topic.
There are some minor revisions to be done:
- please, rename section 2 to make it sound more scientific. Use "Literature review" title for section 2.
- please, decide if it is really necessary to use all equation and check if all the variables are explained.
- P13, L419 - there is an "a" figure missing or is not is just accidentally copied Fig. 3 twice?
- Please, in the Conclusion section, indicate clearly the section where the research questions (l67-l71) are answered.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in the manuscript. We addressed all the points raised by the Reviewer as summarized below.
Point 1: please, rename section 2 to make it sound more scientific. Use "Literature review" title for section 2.
Response 1: Thanks for this suggestion, and we have renamed the title of section 2 as suggested.
Point 2: please, decide if it is really necessary to use all equations and check if all the variables are explained.
Response 2: The first advice about the equations. We agree with the reviewer that the appropriate number of equations in the paper improves the reading experience, so we removed some equations and summarized some necessary formulas in Table 2 (P7) to make it more straightforward and concise. The second is about variables. We have checked all the variables and added some variables and superscript descriptions in the parameter description table (Table 1 in P6).
Point 3: P13, L419 - there is an "a" figure missing or is not is just accidentally copied Fig. 3 twice?
Response 3: We are very sorry for this typographical error, Fig.3 was copied twice, and we have removed it in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Please, in the Conclusion section, indicate clearly the section where the research questions (l67-l71) are answered.
Response 4: Thanks for this suggestion. We have made corrections according to the Reviewer's comments. In the Conclusion section, we answered the four questions that we try to explore thought this study, and there is a one-to-one match between the four findings and the questions. See P19, L548-573.
Thank you and all the reviewers for your comments and kind advice.
Yours sincerely!
Huiyuan Xu
Corresponding author
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and generally, it deserves to be published with some revisions that are suggested below:
Abstract: you may describe the methodology and lists certain assumptions used for this
study.
Correlation: Could you please explain how about the correlation between 7 propositions
in 4.3 Comparative analysis?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We would like to thank you for writing that “the paper is interesting and generally”, we also appreciated the suggestions. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as below.
Point 1: Abstract: you may describe the methodology and lists certain assumptions used for this study.
Response 1: Firstly, thanks for your suggestions. About the methodology, we describe the methodology in the Model analysis section (P6, L224-230). We explain the Stackelberg game and the decision sequence in this model. Considering the reviewer’s suggestion about assumption, we listed some assumptions in section Model Formulation. Because some model-related assumptions contain complex formulas, we list them in section 3.1,3.2 and 3.3, such as demand, cost and profit function. Besides, other assumptions are summarized in P4, L160-175.
Point 2: Correlation: Could you please explain how about the correlation between 7 propositions in 4.3 Comparative analysis?
Response 2: The five propositions in 4.3 Comparative analysis constitute an evaluation framework for two policy by illustrating the comparison of the optimal decisions, demands and profits before and after implementing the cross-channel return policy, respectively. We find that the green level decided by the manufacturer increased (Proposition 1), and the sale price decided by the retailer also increased (Proposition 2) because of the positive correlation between price and green level. In contrast, the wholesale price, the demand and profit of the retailer increased with some conditions. Through the five propositions, we could evaluate the green supply chain with a cross-channel return strategy in terms of greenness, price, demand and profit. For consumers, they can buy greener products at a slightly higher price and get more flexible return services. For the manufacturer, he can encourage retailers to cooperate at a meager cost considering the spillover effect. Furthermore, Proposition 5 provides a way for the manufacturer to eliminate this cost. These can be seen in P10, L351-355.
Besides, there is no relation between Proposition 6 in section 4.4 Coordination Contract and Proposition 7 in section 6 Extended discussion.
Thank you and all the reviewers for your comments and kind advice.
Yours sincerely!
Huiyuan Xu
Cooreponding author
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is a comprehensive, well-structured and methodologically correct study on return policy in a dual-channel green supply chain. The scientific problem addressed in the paper is very specific and within the proposed range it is investigated with proper detail level and methodological reliability. The investigated issue is well parametrized and appropriate numerical evidence is provided. The results of investigation are presented clearly and conclusions are determined by the results. There are some issues that could have been addressed within the model and its parameters. The majority of them relates to the category of green products. The overall assumption is that to ‘green’ the product you just need to make it more expensive. This assumption should be well justified and perhaps discussed in the introductory section, addressing such issues as lean manufacturing, dematerialization or re-use that could be related to both increasing but also decreasing the price. The underlying assumption that relates to the one mentioned above is that the supply chain structure and its performance does not impact the ‘green’ level of the product. Perhaps, some comments should be added on the influence of cross-channel return policy or return ratio on overall ‘green’ level of the product. I don’t insist to include them in the modelling but some justification to the assumptions made should be included. Besides I don’t have any further comments to the quality of the paper or its content. The paper is well written concerning the language. The only editorial remark is that on p. 13. Figure 3a is missing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very grateful to your positive comments for the manuscript. Acoording with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your advice were answered below.
Point 1: The overall assumption is that to ‘green’ the product you just need to make it more expensive. Perhaps you could add a discussion about it in the introductory section.
Response 1: It is really true as reviewer said, green products are not necessarily more expensive. For example, in a green supply chain with a remanufacturing policy, the price of products may not increase becaused of the saving cost. The conclusion that the product is greener and more expensive can be drawn from most relevant literature studies. In a few literatures, the selling price has a negative relationship with greenness.
We have add discussion in assumption (3), see L168-172.
Point 2: Perhaps, some comments should be added on the influence of cross-channel return policy or return ratio on overall ‘green’ level of the product.
Response 2: in this study, we find the green level is improThe cross-channel return policy helps to improve reputation and brand value. Consumers not only could purchase a greener product, but also enjoy the hassle-free returns service. The manufacturers gain more competitive advantages than others. When considering the market competition, this may potentially increase the overall green level of this product. Moreover, the return rate does not affect the improvement of the green level.we draw the conclusion of influence of cross-channel return policy on green level by comparing two model, so we have added comments under proposition 1, see P8, L267-276.
Point 3: p. 13. Figure 3a is missing
Response 3: Many thanks for your reminding. We are very sorry for this typographical error, Fig.3 was copied twice, and we have removed it in the revised manuscript.
Besides, many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised. Thank you and all the reviewers for your comments and kind advice.
Yours sincerely!
Huiyuan Xu
Cooreponding author
