Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

1. The content about the background in the original text can be added with the content about the limitations of previous research.
2. When reading the abstract section, the reader only has partial information about the methodology of the paper, but not a clear understanding of the findings, conclusions, implications and areas of study, so the authors should make significant changes to this section.

Keywords

   In the abstract section of the article, it is mentioned that a "a Mixed Integer Programming" is used. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors may add this term to the keywords.

Introduction

1. The length of this section is large, and there is no certain correlation between the content of the preceding and following paragraphs, giving the impression that the article is illogical and disorganized, suggesting that the author can further strengthen the academic logic of the introductory section.
2. The purpose of the study, the theoretical basis of the study, its significance, its content, the scientific problem it addresses and the points of innovation are not described in detail in the text, so the author should make significant changes to this section.

Background and Literature Review

The response to the literature lacks a certain degree of criticality and is a simple listing of the literature around the purpose of the study, without pointing out the shortcomings and flaws of previous authors. Some important literature in the supply chain field has been left out.
e.g.,
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Mechanism for green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE) using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8450.

Yusuf, A., & Soediantono, D. (2022). Supply Chain Management and Recommendations for Implementation in the Defense Industry: A Literature Review. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 3(3), 63-77.

Zheng, H., Li, X., Zhu, X., Huang, Y., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., ... & Li, C. (2022). Impact of Recycler Information Sharing on Supply Chain Performance of Construction and Demolition Waste Resource Utilization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3878.
etc.

Method Proposal

The merits of the method, its applicability and the reasons for not choosing another method are not clearly stated in the original text and should be clarified by the author.

Discussion and Outlook

The original discussion should include a comparison of the paper's findings with similar previous studies, and if the findings are inconsistent, the author should explain why.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Thanks for reading our paper and for taking the time to offer us your thoughts on our research. We have revised our paper and hope that we correctly interpreted your suggestions.

Abstract

1. The content about the background in the original text can be added with the content about the limitations of previous research.
2. When reading the abstract section, the reader only has partial information about the methodology of the paper, but not a clear understanding of the findings, conclusions, implications and areas of study, so the authors should make significant changes to this section.

 

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We substantially modified and extended the abstract. Specifically, we outlined the addressed literature gap, we clarified our contribution with respect to existing literature, and we mentioned the most relevant implications of our solution.

Keywords

   In the abstract section of the article, it is mentioned that a "a Mixed Integer Programming" is used. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors may add this term to the keywords.

We added the missing keyword.

Introduction

1. The length of this section is large, and there is no certain correlation between the content of the preceding and following paragraphs, giving the impression that the article is illogical and disorganized, suggesting that the author can further strengthen the academic logic of the introductory section.
2. The purpose of the study, the theoretical basis of the study, its significance, its content, the scientific problem it addresses and the points of innovation are not described in detail in the text, so the author should make significant changes to this section.

 

Thanks for yet another valuable suggestion. We substantially modified the introduction. Specifically, after an initial part which aims to remark the relevance of resiliency and sustainability in the current context, we added a second part which focuses on RMS and their potential at supply chain level. In this second part, we specifically referred to the few existing contributions to the subject and we clarified “why” our work contribute to filling the existing gap. We also made explicit the addressed research question.

Finally, to hopefully further clarify the common thread connecting different sections, we ended section 1 with an outline of the structure and content of the paper in relation to the research question.

 

Background and Literature Review

The response to the literature lacks a certain degree of criticality and is a simple listing of the literature around the purpose of the study, without pointing out the shortcomings and flaws of previous authors. Some important literature in the supply chain field has been left out.
e.g.,
Li, X., Du, J., & Long, H. (2020). Mechanism for green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE) using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8450.

Yusuf, A., & Soediantono, D. (2022). Supply Chain Management and Recommendations for Implementation in the Defense Industry: A Literature Review. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 3(3), 63-77.

Zheng, H., Li, X., Zhu, X., Huang, Y., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., ... & Li, C. (2022). Impact of Recycler Information Sharing on Supply Chain Performance of Construction and Demolition Waste Resource Utilization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3878.
etc.

We aimed at arguing our contribution with respect to existing literature in the introduction section (when introducing the research question). Moreover, we also revised the literature review section and added some considerations which aim to clarify how our work differs from existing ones. Finally, we included the suggested literature (together with other literature).  

Method Proposal

The merits of the method, its applicability and the reasons for not choosing another method are not clearly stated in the original text and should be clarified by the author.

Thank you. We believe that all changes made to sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 clarify these aspects. We believe that these aspects are especially addressed in sections 5 and 6. Compared to the previous version, we split the final section into two parts in order to clarify the theoretical and managerial implications (discussed in section 5) and the conclusions (i.e. section 6), which includes the impacts of the study, its limitations and future research.

Discussion and Outlook

The original discussion should include a comparison of the paper's findings with similar previous studies, and if the findings are inconsistent, the author should explain why.

Thank you. We believe that the several changes made to sections 1, 2, 5 and 6 clarify these aspects. More specifically, this has been particularly addressed in sections 1 and 2.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Comments:

General Overview:

It is my pleasure to review the paper entitled “Fostering the Reuse of Manufacturing Resources for Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chains”. This is interesting and state of art with a detailed analysis to assess the reusability of manufacturing resources. The paper is within the scope of Sustainability and is important for sustainable Supply Chains. However, it needs some major changes before publication.

I present the following comments that can help to improve the paper:

Detailed comments: 

 Abstract

The authors should write the main problem and then start how this study is useful to tackle those issues. 

Introduction:

1. The literature is not reviewed well; I suggest the authors to include the recently published articles (From 2019 to 2021) in the revised version. The authors should clearly show what have we done and why this study is important in the introduction section.
2. I couldn't find the innovation of this research, what is the research gap, and why this study is important? Please elaborate.

Methods:

1. I would suggest authors provide a detailed figure for the methodology.

Results:

1. Please provide enough details of codes and data in a supplementary file to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher.
2. I would suggest the authors draw some figures for the results.
3. How the present study could help stakeholders to adopt a sustainable supply chain? 

Conclusion

1. What are the limitations of this study?

Best, 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Reviewer Comments:

General Overview:

It is my pleasure to review the paper entitled “Fostering the Reuse of Manufacturing Resources for Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chains”. This is interesting and state of art with a detailed analysis to assess the reusability of manufacturing resources. The paper is within the scope of Sustainability and is important for sustainable Supply Chains. However, it needs some major changes before publication.

Thanks for reading our paper and for taking the time to offer us your thoughts on our research. We have revised our paper and hope that we correctly interpreted your suggestions.

I present the following comments that can help to improve the paper:

Detailed comments: 

 Abstract

The authors should write the main problem and then start how this study is useful to tackle those issues. 

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We substantially modified and extended the abstract. Specifically, we outlined the addressed literature gap, we clarified our contribution with respect to existing literature, and we mentioned the most relevant implications of our study.

Introduction:

1. The literature is not reviewed well; I suggest the authors to include the recently published articles (From 2019 to 2021) in the revised version. The authors should clearly show what have we done and why this study is important in the introduction section.
2. I couldn't find the innovation of this research, what is the research gap, and why this study is important? Please elaborate.

 

Thanks for yet another valuable suggestion. We substantially modified the introduction. Specifically, after an initial part which aims to remark the relevance of resilience and sustainability in the current context, we added a second part which focuses on RMS and their potential at supply chain level. In this second part, we specifically referred to the few existing contributions to the subject and we clarified “why” our work contribute to filling the existing gap. To this end, we also mentioned and commented on the most recent literature on the subject.  We also made explicit the addressed research question. 

In addition, we revised the literature review section and added some considerations which aim to further clarify the importance of our study.

 

Finally, in both introduction and literature review, we added new citations.

Methods:

1. I would suggest authors provide a detailed figure for the methodology.

Your comment made us realize that in the previous version we misplaced the illustration of the method in section 4 (discussion section) rather than in section 3, making the proposed method confusing.  We therefore moved the figure (Figure 3 in the current version of the manuscript) in section 3. We also added another figure (Figure 1) which shows the framework of concepts used to develop the proposed method.

Results:

1. Please provide enough details of codes and data in a supplementary file to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher.
2. I would suggest the authors draw some figures for the results.
3. How the present study could help stakeholders to adopt a sustainable supply chain? 

 

We believe all relevant data to apply the proposed method have already been provided in the paper. Nonetheless, we made some adjustments (especially in sections 1, 2 and 3) to clarify how the relevant parameters have been identified and illustrate the logic of the method.

Regarding the question “How the present study could help stakeholders to adopt a sustainable supply chain?”, we extended section 4 to explain how the method can be used to improve sustainability

Moreover, we added a new section (current section 5) which clearly discusses the practical implications of the proposed method. Here, we clarified that moving manufacturing processes in specific areas of interest (e.g., closer to local customers), could support supply chains reducing the carbon footprint due to transportation. We also highlighted the role of transportation with respect to the environmental impact of manufacturers in the introduction. 

 

Conclusion

1. What are the limitations of this study?

Thank you. We added the limitations of the study in the conclusion (section 6).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Fostering the Reuse of Manufacturing Resources for Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chains. Paper deals with the very actual topic. However, there are numerous suggestions:

• The abstract is not well written. Among others, the most important results, concluding remarks, practical implications, and scientific contribution must be mentioned.
• The last paragraph in the introduction section is a short methodology/structure of the paper (several sentences for each section). This is missing.
• The literature review and previous research analysis are very modest.  (lines 44-51) and doesn’t explain the „gap analysis“. Stronger argumentation, and better linking with previous papers.

• The separate section Practical and theoretical implications (or Discussion) is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest. This confirms the lack of scientific and practical contribution.
• Scientific papers must have a Conclusion section. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions (this confirms a bad relationship with the gaps in the literature). Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the model.

• Scientific and practical contributions are also questionable.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Fostering the Reuse of Manufacturing Resources for Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chains. Paper deals with the very actual topic.

Thanks for reading our paper and for taking the time to offer us your thoughts on our research. We have revised our paper and hope that we correctly interpreted your suggestions.

However, there are numerous suggestions:

• The abstract is not well written. Among others, the most important results, concluding remarks, practical implications, and scientific contribution must be mentioned.

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We substantially modified and extended the abstract. Specifically, we outlined the addressed literature gap, we clarified our contribution with respect to existing literature, and we mentioned the most relevant implications of our solution.

 

• The last paragraph in the introduction section is a short methodology/structure of the paper (several sentences for each section). This is missing.

Thank you, we added in section 1 the outline of the structure and content of the paper in relation to the addressed research question (which is clearly stated in this new version). We believe this change also supported us in clarifying the common thread connecting different sections.

 

• The literature review and previous research analysis are very modest.  (lines 44-51) and doesn’t explain the „gap analysis“. Stronger argumentation, and better linking with previous papers.

Thanks for yet another valuable suggestion. We substantially modified the introduction and the literature review (sections 1 and 2). In the introduction, after an initial part which aims to remark the relevance of resilience and sustainability in the current context, we added a second part which is our gap analysis. It focuses on RMS and their potential at supply chain level. In this second part, we specifically referred to the few existing contributions to the subject and we clarified “why” our work contribute to filling the existing gap. We also clearly stated the addressed research question. We also extended section 2 with new references and we used this section to further frame our contribution with respect to existing literature.

• The separate section Practical and theoretical implications (or Discussion) is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest. This confirms the lack of scientific and practical contribution.

Thank you, we added a discussion section (section 5) and we specified both the theoretical and the practical contribution.

• Scientific papers must have a Conclusion section. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions (this confirms a bad relationship with the gaps in the literature). Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the model.

Thank you, we renamed and substantially revised the last section (section 6 – Conclusion and outlook), here we argued for the relevance of our work, we discussed the most critical aspects of the proposal, the impacts of our study, as well as the limitations and directions for future research.

• Scientific and practical contributions are also questionable.

Hopefully the reviewer will find that the discussion section (section 5) offers improved discussion of our contribution.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have followed my suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback throughout the revisions’ rounds.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

There are still some points that need to be considered in the 2nd revision.

There is still some recent literature missing in the present version, I strongly encourage the authors to search using google scholar and Scopus and add the recently published article on the present subject. 

2. Please provide enough details of codes and data in a supplementary file to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher.

3. How the present study could help stakeholders to adopt a sustainable supply chain? 

Best, 

Author Response

1. There are still some points that need to be considered in the 2nd revision.
   1. There is still some recent literature missing in the present version, I strongly encourage the authors to search using google scholar and Scopus and add the recently published article on the present subject.
   Thank you. We further extended the list of references; additionally, we provided details of the literature review process. We have also attached an Excel file (* we had to combine two files and convert into a PDF) reporting the results of the literature analysis.
   In this round, we specifically included the following references:
   - Alarcon-Gerbier et al. 2022 – Software-Defined Mobile Supply Chains: Rebalancing Resilience and Efficiency in Production Systems – Sustainability
   - Yazdani, Khezri and Benyoucef – 2022 - Process and production planning for sustainable reconfigurable manufacturing systems (SRMSs): multi-objective exact and heuristic-based approaches - International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
   - Alix, Benama and Perry – 2019 - A framework for the design of a reconfigurable and mobile manufacturing system - Procedia Manufacturing
   - Hwang and Noh – 2019 - 3D Visualization System of Manufacturing Big Data and Simulation Results of Production for an Automotive Parts Supplier - Advances in Production Management Systems: Towards Smart Production Management Systems
   - Abdi and Labib – 2017 - RMS capacity utilisation: product family and supply chain - International Journal of Production Research
   - Adamo et al. - 2016 - On-demand continuous-flow production of pharmaceuticals in a compact, reconfigurable system - Science
   - Harrison, Vera, and Ahmad – 2016 – Engineering Methods and Tools for Cyber-Physical Automation Systems - Proceedings of the IEEE
   2. Please provide enough details of codes and data in a supplementary file to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher.
   Thank you.
   We attach two supplementary files*:
   - The data regarding our literature review process.
   - The data used for the illustrative example.
   *We had to combine and convert these files into a PDF. We attached it as additional material, thus not for publishing. We will, however, share our knowledge with any independent research who might contact us to reproduce our work.
   Moreover, in the paper we aimed to provide all required data to allow an independent researcher to apply the proposed method. Regarding the proposed mathematical formulation, the problem is a linear multi-objective optimization, that can be solved using the optimization toolbox in e.g., MATLAB.
   3. How the present study could help stakeholders to adopt a sustainable supply chain?
   Thank you. In the previous round, we already tried to address this point. However, we realize that it was not adequately remarked; we apologize for this. Therefore, we modified section 5 (discussion section which includes the managerial implications) and: (i) we separated the comments on sustainability from the comments on resilience; (ii) we added the following
   observations:
   “The method also supports supply chains and networks of companies to adopt more
   environmentally sustainable configurations, because it provides a procedure to move manufacturing processes in specific areas of interest (e.g., closer to local customers), consequently reducing the carbon footprint of the supply chain due to transportation and the
   transportation cost of products or parts. Moreover, as supply chains aim to enhance network sustainability while also ensuring adequate profitability, the fact that the algorithm aims at identifying the candidates with maximum reusability supports the identification of cost-effective
   network configuration options.”
   Below we report the other changes we made at the previous round.
   In section 1:
   “Today, supply chains have an increasing interest in reducing their carbon footprint by moving specific manufacturing processes closer to local customers or areas of interest to reduce the environmental impact [5]. This would also reduce transportation costs, but may result in prohibitive investment costs.”
   In section 4:
   “The method allows comparing machines based on their reusability and geographical locations and can therefore be used to improve supply chain resilience and sustainability. Indeed, the
   preliminary identification of the areas of interest might depend on supply chains’ needs to: (i) resiliently reconfigure a network after a major disruption or (ii) move manufacturing processes within areas of interest (e.g., closer to local customers) to reduce the network carbon footprint”
   In section 5:
   “From a practical perspective, the proposed method supports practitioners in identifying reusable and reconfigurable machines when aiming to improve supply chain resilience and sustainability. Indeed, due to either an unexpected disruption or aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of a supply chain, companies might need to move a number of manufacturing
   processes in specific areas of interest, and they would be in-terested in identifying reusable machines to ensure responsive and cost-effective net-work reconfigurations.”

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback throughout the revisions’ rounds.