A Novel MDCM Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare System in the Era of Logistics 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The topic of the manuscript is interesting, but there are some issues that should be considered in order to improve the quality of the paper and make it publishable.

First of all, the authors made great effort to present the idea, keeping the logical flow throughout the manuscript. The manuscript really has a great potential.

As far as important and necessary major improvements, the comments are as follows:

• Please state clearly in the abstract who can benefit from your work
• It is hard to find direct connection between the text in the introduction and research questions of this study derived from it. Please elaborate this in more details
• Materials and methods section just lists and superficially explains the papers that previously addressed similar issues. You should at least make the connection/comparison of the results between these studies and yours in the discussion
• The motivation to chose F-BWM and F-ARAS is not clear. Especially, since you introduce two more methods to do the analyses at the end. Please elaborate this issue in more details
• Why do you use different fuzzy linguistic scales for F-BWM and F-ARAS?
• The discussion should be more thoroughly elaborated, making a connection with previous research in the field. Furthermore, you should be more precise in explaining who and how can benefit from the results presented in the manuscript

Looking forward to read the improved version.

Best regards!

Author Response

Comments of Reviewer 1:

Comment R1.1) Please state clearly in the abstract who can benefit from your work.

Reply R1.1) Thanks for your comments. The researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers can utilized the proposed framework and the results of study. The following sentence is added to the abstract.

“Investigating the importance of SSS can be a road map for the policymakers and the decision-makers is beneficial since the impact of COVID-19 on SSS is studied from the perspective of Logistics 4.0.”

Comment R1.2) It is hard to find direct connection between the text in the introduction and research questions of this study derived from it. Please elaborate this in more details.

Reply R1.2) Thanks for recommendation. The linkage between the introduction and research questions are improved. New explanations and sentences are added to the introduction.

Comment R1.3) Materials and methods section just lists and superficially explains the papers that previously addressed similar issues. You should at least make the connection/comparison of the results between these studies and yours in the discussion.

Reply R1.3) Thank you for your support. The similarities and differences are compared in the discussion section.

Comment R1.4) The motivation to chose F-BWM and F-ARAS is not clear. Especially, since you introduce two more methods to do the analyses at the end. Please elaborate this issue in more details.

Reply R1.4) Thank you for your interest. Combining these two methods are explained in more detailed.

Comment R1.5) Why do you use different fuzzy linguistic scales for F-BWM and F-ARAS?

Reply R1.5) Many thanks for your suggestion. To capture vagueness and fuzziness in detail we selected different fuzzy linguistic scale Also, the original scales were chosen because it is easy to use and their usage is understandable.

Comment R1.6) The discussion should be more thoroughly elaborated, making a connection with previous research in the field. Furthermore, you should be more precise in explaining who and how can benefit from the results presented in the manuscript.

Reply R1.6) Thank you for your guidance. New explanations and sentences are added to the results section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a sustainable supplier selection framework is implemented for a health institution under the effect of the pandemic. To determine the direct effects of the pandemic in the health sector, fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods are utilized in the application.

 

1. Please emphasize the scientific value-added or contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction.
2. Why do you propose those RQs? I think you need to properly explain this in your introduction.
3. Please put particular emphasis on its novelty and expected significance for the field.
4. Multiple spelling errors in the document and tables, for example Table 1, criteria 2 shows "ocial" instead Social, …
5. A better explanation about the process of selecting the membership function for the linguistic terms is needed. Why were the pythagorean fuzzy numbers selected instead of other membership functions?
6. Missing detailed information related to sensitivity analysis, add a table with the preference score of each alternative and the ranking.
7. The tables need to be corrected; the information is not clearly displayed.
8. More input is required on the results and discussion. 

Author Response

Comments of Reviewer 2:

Comment R2.1) Please emphasize the scientific value-added or contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction.

Reply R2.1) Thanks for your comments.

Comment R2.2) Why do you propose those RQs? I think you need to properly explain this in your introduction.

Reply R2.2) Thanks for recommendation.  

Comment R2.3) Please put particular emphasis on its novelty and expected significance for the field.

Reply R2.3) Thank you for your constructive support.

Comment R2.4) Multiple spelling errors in the document and tables, for example Table 1, criteria 2 shows "ocial" instead Social, …

Reply R2.4) Thank you for your attention. We checked all the manuscript and corrected all the errors.

Comment R2.5) A better explanation about the process of selecting the membership function for the linguistic terms is needed. Why were the pythagorean fuzzy numbers selected instead of other membership functions?

Reply R2.5) Many thanks for your suggestion. To capture vagueness and fuzziness in detail we selected different fuzzy linguistic scale Also, the original scales were chosen because it is easy to use and their usage is understandable.

Comment R2.6) Missing detailed information related to sensitivity analysis, add a table with the preference score of each alternative and the ranking.

Reply R2.6) Thank you. As the change of the weight of criterion  is simulated through 50 scenarios, the ranking of suppliers is determined by 50 matrices of 8 × 50 order. Thus, we cannot add this large matrix to the paper.

Comment R2.7) The tables need to be corrected; the information is not clearly displayed.

Reply R2.7) Many thanks for your recommendation. All tables are checked and controlled.

Comment R2.8) More input is required on the results and discussion.

Reply R2.8) Thank you for your recommendation. The discussion section is enriched with your suggestions.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       l. 86 "of these four questions" Above are five questions.

2.       Sec. 2.1, 2.2. It would be much more beneficial for a reader if the criteria from pre-pandemic and post=pandemic periods will be presented in tabular form and compared.

3.       The equation (5) is in an unreadable form.

4.       Table 1 “ocial” instead of “Social”.

5.       Figure 2. Only single change (swap) is seen, so the chart does not provide much information.

6.       In general, the  sensitivity analysis in Sec. 4.3 is not very convincing. Instead of many repetitions for single weight, the number of various tests for several different cases should be done. The level of uncertainty can be the guide for choosing cases.

7.       Throughout the paper there are a number of semicolons used in unconventional way for English.

Author Response

Comments of Reviewer 3:

Comment R3.1) l. 86 "of these four questions" Above are five questions.

Reply R3.1) Thanks for your comments.

Comment R3.2) Sec. 2.1, 2.2. It would be much more beneficial for a reader if the criteria from pre-pandemic and post=pandemic periods will be presented in tabular form and compared.

Reply R3.2) We reviewed the literature under two headings: pre-pandemic and post-pandemic. We discussed into great detail on the situation both pre- and post-pandemic.

Comment R3.3) The equation (5) is in an unreadable form.

Reply R3.3) Thanks for your comments.

Comment R3.4) Table 1 “ocial” instead of “Social”.

Reply R3.4) Th Thank you for your attention. We checked all the manuscript and corrected all the errors.

Comment R3.5) Figure 2. Only single change (swap) is seen, so the chart does not provide much information.

Reply R3.5) According to first (original) analysis, the first three ranking is obtained as A4, A6, and A7. After implementation of 50 scenarios, it is observed that these three alternatives hold their rankings. Therefore, the ranking of alternatives is robust into weight changes.

Comment R3.6) In general, the sensitivity analysis in Sec. 4.3 is not very convincing. Instead of many repetitions for single weight, the number of various tests for several different cases should be done. The level of uncertainty can be the guide for choosing cases.

Reply R3.6) Thank you. As the change of the weight of criterion  is simulated through 50 scenarios, the ranking of suppliers is determined by 50 matrices of 8 × 50 order. Thus, we cannot add this large matrix to the paper.

Comment R3.7) Throughout the paper there are a number of semicolons used in unconventional way for English.

Reply R3.7) Thank you for your guidance. We checked all the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All of the suggestions proposed are adequately addressed. Therefore, I am more than happy to propose acceptance of the paper for the publication in this respectable journal.

Whish you all the best!

Reviewer 2 Report

Better version of the document, the authors applied all recommendations placed in the first review round.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am not fully convinced by the Authors replies but the paper has been improved.