Research on Optimization Method and Algorithm Design of Green Simultaneous Pick-up and Delivery Vehicle Scheduling under Uncertain Demand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The author's response is good.  The authors have considered all my suggestions. I don't have any further comments on this article. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This is the third round of peer review. The authors answered the questions of the first and second rounds. I am satisfied with the answers. The quality of the manuscript has improved. I think the article can be published in the journal after editorial changes.

Good luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Authors now have followed previous recommendations and the article is in good shape for publication.

Nevertheless, I still suggest to proofreed the paper in order to fix language and grammar issues.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have considered all my commands and thus the paper can be accepted in current form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have considered all my commands but the added new table (table1) has to be updated. You have to add 2 new columns in the beginning tables call (reference no, and published year). Also, you have to mention the approach name in the rows instead of writing ‘existing approach 1’. The paper can be accepted after modifying table 1. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I am treating this as a second round for your manuscript.

Unfortunatly, I have to say this version is still far from publication and I must advice a rejection.

My previous recommendations were very lightly adressed or simply ignored.  Moreover, after reading other review reports I basically agree with Reviewer 3 comments. These were also not taken into account in a proper manner. 

Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors resubmitted the manuscript “Research on Optimization Method and Algorithm Design of Green Simultaneous Pickup and Delivery Vehicle Scheduling Under Uncertain Demand”.

The authors responded to the reviewer's suggestions. Unfortunately, some of these answers have not yet been accurately reflected in the article. I propose to detail the following points in the article.

1. Provide references to the literature to prove the statements (Line 39).

2. You must add more recent and relevant references on the issue (Section 2.1 «The Application of Low Carbon Target Model»).

3. In the "Literature review" (sections 2.1 and 2.2) it’s not enough to state the current works. Authors should point out the pros and cons of those studies and why those researches need to improve.

4. The content of column 1 of table 1 is not clear. What are the existing methods? Please provide references to studies.

5. I suggest placing a text explaining the constraint condition (lines 411-425) before each formula.

6. At the beginning of section 4 a flowchart is suggested to be added for better illustrating the proposed method.

7. I suggest clarifying the software tool for implementing the developed model.

8. There is no discussion in the article. In the discussion, one should relate the results of one's own research to other scientific studies on this subject. I suggest adding a comparison of the obtained results with the available literature in the discussion section.

9. The new knowledge that this study presents in the academic and practice must be clearly described.

10. Please provide some recommendations for future research.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is good and interesting to read. Please check the following comments to enhance the article. 

1. Sections 1 and 2 can be combined and form a single section. I felt that section 2 is too large. It can be minimized with only important technical points related to the objective of this article. 

2. In section 5, the speed of the truck is mentioned as 60 km/h. As the speed of the vehicle affects fuel consumption, it has an impact on both carbon emission and service cost. Why did the authors choose the speed of 60 km/h?

3. Authors have not given the value for the acceleration of the truck and the slope of the road. Please provide the data that is used.

4.  Please provide the justification for carbon emission costs. Please include how the carbon emission cost is determined or reference from where the value is obtained.

5. In section 5, the service cost is given as 90 yuan/h. How is the service cost determined?

6. Follow the proper format for the units in tables 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. For example, replace ‘Total cost/Yuan’ with ‘Total cost (Yuan)’.

7. Conclusion can be rewritten effectively.