Developing a Smart City Logistics Assessment Framework (SCLAF): A Conceptual Tool for Identifying the Level of Smartness of a City Logistics System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has some grammatical errors and typos, including references.
It is advisable to insert dots or colons in the title or to change it.
The novelty of the research and the limitations within the text should be emphasised.
It is necessary to expand the abstract.
It is necessary to include all acronyms in the text in an extended form when they are used for the first time.
More literature describing both the development of e-commerce and smart cities is needed to better define the proposed study; therefore, the following research papers are recommended:
1)Inac, H., & Oztemel, E. (2021). An assessment framework for the transformation of mobility 4.0 in smart cities. Systems, 10(1), 1.
2) Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Holland, M., Sikder, S. K., Shaw, P., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2021). Urban Transformation Toward a Smart City: An E-Commerce–Induced Path-Dependent Analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(1), 04020060.
3)Campisi, T., Russo, A., Tesoriere, G., Bouhouras, E., & Basbas, S. (2021, September). COVID-19's Effects over E-commerce: A Preliminary Statistical Assessment for Some European Countries. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 370-385). Springer, Cham.
4)Korczak, J., & Kijewska, K. (2019). Smart Logistics in the development of Smart Cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 39, 201-211.
A flow chart or graph to be included in the introductory part of the text is advisable in order to describe the steps of the investigation conducted.
Figure 1 needs to be made more readable
It is necessary to make the bulleted lists proposed in the manuscript uniform and in some cases to summarise certain concepts by means of tables.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review. Your comments and remarks were very valuable and helped us improve the quality of our research. Please find in the attached file our answer to your comments and the in the revised document the correspondent changes based on your remarks.
Thank you,
Best regards
Elpida Xenou
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper sould be shortened and revised. I think that the main weakness is related to the lack of empirical results.
The auhtors shoudl also provide the conclusions (not repeating other parts of the paper).
FOr the citation style, please include the authors name, when it is needed. For instance, do not write [22] dealt but authors' names (reference) dealt.
I also think that some other papers could be added for instance after [31,32] cite also :A new model for Last-Mile Delivery and Satellite Depots management: The impact of the on-demand economy.
Please see the document with some remarks and detailed corrections.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review. Your comments and remarks were very valuable and helped us improve the quality of our research. Please find in the attached file our answer to your comments and the in the revised document the correspondent changes based on your remarks.
Thank you,
Best regards
Elpida Xenou
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Authors should clearly mention the objectives of the study pointwise in introduction section. 2. More elaboration on development of mathematical model (may be given in the appendix). 3. A comparative study of performance with other related models (if existing) 4. A bit addition to future scope. 5. Explain the managerial implications. Possibly if the authors may related the research with SDGs.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review. Your comments and remarks were very valuable and helped us improve the quality of our research. Please find in the attached file our answer to your comments and the in the revised document the correspondent changes based on your remarks.
Thank you,
Best regards
Elpida Xenou
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Figure 1 needs to be inserted with a more readable, high-resolution text. There are several grammatical errors; once this is corrected the paper will be eligible for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your remark. We have replaced the correspondent Figure and proofreaded again the document (by using also proofreading tools). You may find our revisions to the new version of the paper.
Best regards
Elpida
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your acceptance!
Best regards
Elpida
