Intermodal Green p-Hub Median Problem with Incomplete Hub-Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The intermodal green p-hub median issue with an incomplete hub-network was investigated by the author. This paper's topic selection is highly fascinating, and the research methods and results are reliable. Overall, the work was almost ready for publication. But first, I'd want to make a few comments that I hope the author would consider.

What theoretical contribution does this study bring to the discipline, and to whom (stakeholders) might practical implications be provided? In the abstract section, the author should explain briefly.

In the penultimate paragraph of the introduction section, the author should summarize the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the article.

The author concentrates on the review of the study issue in the literature review section (incomplete Hub-Network). However, there is a dearth of an overview of relevant research methodologies in this sector. In this section, I propose that the author augment the current research methodologies that may be employed to tackle the incomplete Hub-network issue.

The author should highlight the benefits of the Genetic Algorithm in addressing the incomplete Hub-network issue in the Genetic Algorithm section. Why do you want to use this method, particularly when alternative options are available?

The most serious fault in this work is the absence of an explanation of the research's theoretical contribution and practical implications. This section (discussion), I believe, may be introduced before the conclusion section. Furthermore, in the conclusion, the author should expound on the study's limitations and provide potential future remedies or research areas.

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the anonymous reviewer for his enlightening feedback, detailed suggestions and relevant comments.
In the attached report, we have attempted to address the issues raised, and offer an in-depth response to all comments of the honourable reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has an interesting topic, but the following issues should be resolved in it:

1- The introduction should be written more precisely and the innovation of the article should be made clear in it.

2- The literature review should be detailed and specified in the form of a research gap table. In this table, research innovations should be stated.

3- It is better to refer to new references in the article, especially the articles of recent years, such as the following articles:

Nozari, H., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., & Gharemani-Nahr, J. (2022). A neutrosophic fuzzy programming method to solve a multi-depot vehicle routing model under uncertainty during the covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Engineering, 35(2), 360-371.

 

Szmelter-Jarosz, A., Ghahremani-Nahr, J., & Nozari, H. (2021). A neutrosophic fuzzy optimization model for optimal sustainable closed-loop supply chain network during COVID-19. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(11), 519.

 

4- In the modeling section, it is better to describe the model and indices in the form of a table.

5- The genetic algorithm method is a formal method. It is better to use two metaheuristic methods in solving the model and compare the results.

6- It is usually necessary to use a precise method such as using GAMS or similar software.

7- Sensitivity analysis should be done in solving the problem.

8- The discussion and conclusion section should be presented more fully and the limitations of the research should also be presented.

Author Response

We extend our thanks to the anonymous reviewer for his enlightening feedback, detailed suggestions and relevant comments.
In the attached report, we have attempted to address the issues raised, and offer an in-depth response to all comments of the honourable reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf