Trends and New Challenges in the Green Supply Chain: The Reverse Logistics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author/s,

The topic of the paper is interesting, but there are some aspects that should be reviewed:

1. Please present clearly the research methodology
2. Please emphasize the link between the manuscript and the aim of the journal.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First, the paper needs serious English editing and proof-reading. Many sentences are hard to understand or just wrong, probably as a result of literal translations.

 

Having said that, the paper is thoroughly positioned within the existing literature. However, as with many innovative topics, the topic under discussion is evolving rapidly, and you should try to reflect the latest insights of the current discussion in your paper. You should be able to clearly define and position the different concepts as presented in the literature in more detail, e.g. Green Supply Chain Management; Sustainable Supply Chain Management; Circular Supply Chain Magement; Closed Loop Supply Chain Management; Reverse Logistics; etc. The following might help in further developing this:

 

Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., Maull, R., 2018. In search of a circular supply chain archetypeea content-analysis-based literature review. Prod. Plann. Contr. 29 (6), 438e451.

 

Gonzalez-Sanchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A.M., García-Muina, F.E., 2020. Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: a literature review. Sustainability 12 (6), 2459.

 

Krikke, H., 2021. Value creation in a circular economy: an interdisciplinary approach. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A., Brandli, L., Salvia, A.L., Wall, T. (Eds.), Decent Work and Economic Growth. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham, forthcoming, pp. 1107-1122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339155683_Value_Creation_in_a_Circular_Economy_An_Interdisciplinary_Approach

 

Lambrechts, W., 2021. Ethical and sustainable sourcing: toward strategic and holistic sustainable supply chain management. In decent work and economic growth. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A., Brandli, L., Salvia, A.L., Wall, T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham, pp. 402-414. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338753232_Ethical_and_Sustainable_Sourcing_Towards_Strategic_and_Holistic_Sustainable_Supply_Chain_Management

 

Also check whether your used abbreviations are in line with what is generally accepted. For example, Green Supply Chain Management is commonly abbreviated as GSCM and not GrSCM.

 

As I understand, your paper is the result of a thorough and extensive review of the literature. You should clarify in more detail how exactly you did this literature review. Was it a Systematic Literature Review? If yes, which steps did you take? Which databases used etc. In sum, a proper methods section should be introduced in the paper to clarify the research and analysis steps of your study.

It might also help to consult the following paper:

Seuring, S., Yawar, S. A., Land, A., Khalid, R. U., & Sauer, P. C. (2020). The application of theory in literature reviews–illustrated with examples from supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors 

Thank you for improving the paper according to the reviewers comments. I still consider that the methodology section could be improved. Please described it based on the literature.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

Thanks for revising your paper according to the reviewer comments. I appreciate the new sections describing the methods, and I appreciate your position 'in between' systematic and bibliometric literature review.

 

Yet, I think this methods sections should be revised, please desribe your methods based on the literature (explain your methodological choices and steps) and base them on references (i.e. methodological papers, such as being prsented in SCM literature).

Once this section has improved, I think the paper can be accepted for publications.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author/s,

Thank you for the improved version of the paper. Now it can be published.

Happy New Year!