Disruption in Resource-Intensive Supply Chains: Reshoring and Nearshoring as Strategies to Enable Them to Become More Resilient and Sustainable

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors are advised to revise the paper according to the listed suggestions. 

1. The analysis of the most recent literature on the location strategies of production units by firms is comprehensive and up-to-date, as is the identification of two knowledge gaps, which is appreciable. However, it would be appropriate for the authors also to enunciate one or more research questions to better connect the theoretical framework with the results of the analysis they carried out. 
2. Table 1 shows data for the two industrial districts referring only to the year 2021; it would be interesting if the authors would also provide the same data for previous years to see a trend of the two industries over time.
3. In section 4.2, the authors should clarify by what methodological criterion the levels of the criticality of supply were assigned to the different scenarios.
4. In section 4.3, the GWP figure labelled as Figure 2 should be Figure 3, as stated in the text.
5. The below section "4.3 Technological assessment of sourcing option" should be labelled as "4.4" to follow the succession.  Also, Table 4 does not conform to the formatting provided by the journal; please revise it.
6. Section "5. Discussion and conclusions" should be better argued to correlate theoretical framework and results more clearly, leveraging the gaps and research questions.
7. You can propose recent works.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your appreciation of our study and for your valuable suggestions to improve the quality and readability of our article. Below we respond point by point to your kind requests, pointing out that in the text changes and additions are indicated with red font.

Kind regards, the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Section 1. Introduction

Section 1 and 2 should be unified into a single section called Introduction, where the problem statement and the objective are quickly stated. In the current structure, the problem appears in section 2.

 

Section 2. The state-of-the-art in reshoring and nearshoring

There is much discussion about reshoring and nearshoring, but it is unclear what problem they want to solve. The authors need to discuss the literature they report in a way that leads them to consider the two GAPs they report.

 

It is also important to know more about the Italian ceramics industry, as it is not justified why this sector is used. Why wasn't the automotive sector analyzed, for example? Defining the ceramic sector and its problems would help define and understand the problem better. In other words, the problem must be justified and by that, I mean who gains and why if the problem is solved. 

At the end of section two (unified with section 1), you need to mention the article's structure and tell the reader what he/she will find next. 

 

Section 3. Methodological design 

In the gaps, only the ceramics sector is reported as an object of study, but Table 1 also reports Spain. I suggest eliminating Spain and focusing only on Italy or mentioning that Spain is also part of the study.

The information in Table 1 helps justify the study problem in the Introduction section. Consider moving that information. 

The methodology should define the techniques used for the analysis, which is unclear. 

There is no mention of how the analyzed information is obtained or the sources. 

 

4. Transdisciplinary analysis's findings

Much of the content in this section refers to methodology, as it indicates how the problem is solved and the analysis is performed.

Many of the paragraphs are exaggeratedly long. They should be broken up, seeking to give them continuity.

An LCA is reported that was not indicated in the methodology.

 

Conclusion: The results are interesting; unfortunately, the scientific structure of the article should be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We were very pleased with your constructive comments and believe they helped us to greatly improve the manuscript and for that we are grateful. We have responded point by point to your comments and the additions/changes made are highlighted in the text in red font.

Kind regards, the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Greetings,

The paper has good potential, but it needs to be refined in detail. Put the summary under the title of the paper. The summary should also include the most important results. It is necessary to make the introduction more detailed and expand it. Explain in more detail the objectives of the paper and the contribution of the paper. The second selection is well done, it does not need to be corrected. The methodology must be explained in more detail. The results lack a more detailed data analysis. Improve results. Somehow the results are too simple for me and not demanding for calculation to improve it. Separate the conclusion from the discussion. Expand the discussion, also the conclusion. In conclusion, provide guidelines for future research.

All the best

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very pleased that you have positively evaluated our research and are grateful to you for providing us with the opportunity to improve the manuscript. Below we respond point by point to your suggestions, pointing out that in the text, changes and additions are indicated in red font.

Kind regards, the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for attending to my comments. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for appreciating our review.

The Authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Greetings,

The authors complied with the review. The paper should now be accepted.

All the best

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for appreciating our review.

The Authors.