Analysis of Competitiveness in Agri-Supply Chain Logistics Outsourcing: A B2B Contractual Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I definitely read with pleasure this paper, which deals with an interesting and current topic, namely that of 3PL specifically for the agri-food sc, and specifically from the point of view of competition. Indeed, the spread of e-commerce systems and the changes in consumer purchasing habits (above all after the pandemic) challenge the logistics field and that of service providers, which necessarily have to gain advantages compared to competitors. So, the topic is surely original and noteworthy. The paper is well written, clear and detailed; all the formulae are properly explained and passages are understandable. Discussion as well is well articulated. Congratulation for your work.

Probably, the literature review section is a little bit too long, and the readability could be improved by trying to summarize it.

Moreover, I wuould suggest to add at the end of the intruduction section a short sentences for presenting the structure of the paper, for the sake of clarity.

Just two minor remarks:

• line 55: the mentioned examples need to be referenced
• line 59: a better and clearer definition of 4PL could be provided
• why do you refer to DRIVERS for suppliers, e-commerce retailers, and 3 PL? They are ACTORS of the sc, arent't them?

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good day,

Dear Authors

Lines 79-87 belong in the methodology, not in the introduction of the paper. At the same time, their evaluation in the text is missing. 

Literature review lacks in-depth analysis of literature sources. Analysis of outsourcing in relation to agricultural logistics is missing. The current literature is only superficial. 

Materials and Methods needs to be clarified. First, the sequence of the paper and the scientific methods used must be stated. I would make the formulas presented clearer, for example by using a table. It is unnecessary to duplicate the formulae in both the methodology and the results and even in the appendix. 

Table 1. List of parameters and variables I would move to the appendix of the paper. The table is very large and occupies almost the whole page. 

 Result - the authors probably meant Results. This part of the paper needs to be simplified because it contains a large number of formulas, which are also in the appendix of the paper. Thus they are duplicated in the paper. In this section, I would rather report the most interesting results found that the authors would like to draw attention to. 

The conclusion also lacks the justification of the topic at the national and supranational level. Missing from this section is whether the issue under study can be identified on a similar basis in another country in the world. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have incorporated the comments. I recommend for publication.