Decision Models for a Dual-Recycling Channel Reverse Supply Chain with Consumer Strategic Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presented for review is an interesting attempt at building a model for determining risk in agricultural systems. The issues raised fall within the area of interest of the Sustainability journal. However, before publication, the article requires some corrections:
1. Chapter: Literature Review and References - please supplement your references with the latest publication achievements in the analyzed area of research (2019-2021). Please provide conclusions from these additional publications (literature sources) in the Literature Review chapter's content.
2. Chapter 3.1.3 Supply Chain Operational Risks - please expand the supply chain operational risk description. The present description is very shallow and does not make sense of the definition of operational risk at all!
3. Lines 39-45 - please indicate the data sources presented in the text.
4. Line 294 - editorial note - please prepare the table following the journal's requirements
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.
The yellow part that has been revised according to your comments. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors constructed a Stackelberg game model for a dual-recycling channel reverse supply chain, in which reference price and consumer preference effect on the recovery of recyclable dealer and recycler. Then, they explored a coordinated pricing mechanism to enhance the performance of the reverse supply chain with dual-channel.
( 1 ) Section: - Abstract.
The abstract does not provide an appropriate information on questions such as:- What is unique about the research findings? What was novel?
( 2 ) Section: - Introduction & literature review.
Introduction, in general, is appropriate and covers important studies published elsewhere. However, the need for this study is not explained well. No references are cited in Introduction section. No recent references are cited in literature review section.
( 3 ) Section: - Methodology.
The Methodology section lacks references to methods previously developed by others.
( 4 ) Sections:- Analytical models & Optimization problems (Results and Discussion)
What is novel about the paper? How is this study and its findings will be beneficial for the whole world? All such questions about originality and novelty are not answered in the discussion part of the manuscript. Therefore, someone could raise concerns about the originality of this manuscript.
( 5 ) Section:- Conclusion and policy implications.
Conclusions and policy implications appear to be very vague. Specific novel conclusive statements should be included. The limitation lacks.
( 6 ) Section:- References.
No recent references are cited.
(7) Tables and figures are acceptable.
No title for table 1.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.
The yellow part that has been revised according to your comments. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:
As for question 1, it has been revised according to experts' opinions（see page 1）.
As for question 2, it has been revised according to experts' opinions(see page 2).
As for question 3, it has been revised according to experts' opinions(see page 3-5)
As for question 4, it has been revised according to experts' opinions(see Page 4, Chapter 3, first paragraph)
As for question 5, it has been revised according to experts' opinions
As for question 6, it has been revised according to experts' opinions（See literature 2，20-27）
As for question 7, it has been revised according to experts' opinions
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their effort in conducting this research but I would suggest adding a more recent publications to their literature review such as :
Ismail, L.B., Alawamleh, M., Aladwan, K. and Alragheb, A.A., 2019. The relationship between green SCM practices and organisational performance: evidence from Jordanian pharmaceutical manufacturers. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 34(2), pp.172-192.
And add managerial implications section for their research this can be two paragraphs so readers can benefit from this interesting work.
Thank you
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.
The yellow part that has been revised according to your comments. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:
As for question 1, it has been revised according to experts' opinions（see literature 27，page3）.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments.
