Indonesians’ Perceptions of Auto Parts Remanufactured in China: Implications for Global Remanufacturing Operations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The abstract is very confusing. It is referring China, Indonesia, and South East Asia (SEA) interchangeably. It is suggested to re-write the abstract.
2. The manuscript needs major English/Grammar revision.
3. “The global supply chain of remanufacturing is growing in recent years.” This statement needs reference.
4. “three million new cars have been stable for the five consecutive years since 2012 in the SEA region” Please clarify.
5. “China leads the production of automobiles globally, with 25 million productions in 2018, or 28% of all cars and trucks produced globally.” Please cite these statements. The actual number is 26 million. Also, make sure to cite all fact/statistics statements
6. It is suggested to remove politically-inclined statements from the article persuasive to a scientific audience.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I read your manuscript with interest and found the research to be very well laid out and easy to read.

However, I found a few elements that should be refined and which I report below.

• The introduction is informative, but lacks a mention of the study's conclusions.
• The literature review is comprehensive and very well explained however some important scientific contributions published recently are missing, among which I give these as only, but not exhaustive, examples:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226264

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60355-1_3

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6779-7_11

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155980

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.015

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51328-3_63

https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12478

• The survey was conducted in 2017, so 5 years have passed and many happenings have occurred in global supply chains and consumer behavior. It would be appropriate for the authors to provide valid elements to consider the results of the survey still current or, on the contrary, to specify that it is a snapshot referring to a specific time and that it requires updating to take into account the major changes that have occurred.
• The introduction refers to the relevance of remanufacturing for the implementation of strategies (for companies) and behaviors (for consumers) of circularity and more generally of sustainability. This concept was no longer considered in the study, while instead it should be the basis for justifying the survey and all the development of the research. In addition, of course, the consistency of the paper's content with the purposes of this journal.
• Finally, in the conclusions, the implications of the study for managerial practice and practitioners were expressed with sufficient clarity, while the contribution made by this research to theory was missing, also specifying how this work fits into the existing body of literature.

Finally, I encourage the authors to make the suggested integrations to improve the manuscript before its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents results on Indonesians' perception of Auto Parts Remanufactured in China. The paper is well written and prepared however, there are a few issues:

• line: 17 in Abstract there is a pointed situation on China in 2010- this is not actual data
• lines:23-24: the second research question is not clear. Please rewrite this because it is not understandable for the reader
• lines 37-38: reference is missing?
• lines 281-283: why have You used these methods? can You explain this?
• line 273: There should be put the Fig.1, when it was first mentioned not after line 303
• line: 326: You are writing about previous studies, please point them 

Additional general comments:

• Why have You not included a general question about the knowledge on remanufacturing (what is this) how does it influence risks and benefits or other issues?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

After reading the latest version of your paper, I believe that the improvements you have made are adequate to consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear the reviewer, Thank you very much for all the comments and suggestion for the article. We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments.