A Comprehensive Review of Modern Cold Chain Shipping Solutions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In dealing with cold chain shipping, this paper presents a conceptual model as the basis of some solutions. Although this paper has some possibilities, it requires some considerable revision. First the abstract is too broad, it needs to be more specific based on the findings of the paper. The literature review section does not clearly cover the GAP found and thus the importance of the proposed conceptual model. The research methodology section does not cover the specifics of the conceptual model. Yes, this model is discussed in section 4, however, in section 3 it is not clear why this method was selected, what are its advantages, how the model will be validated, etc to better support cold chain shipping. Section 4 is sound. The conclusion section also needs to be rewritten to better showcase not only the findings but also the possibility for future research. Finally, some editing is required to fix the grammar errors, etc.
Author Response
The following changes have been made:
1. Abstract:
a. An overall summary of the findings is added instead of the broad statements.
b. The limitations and challenges of the study are added as well.
2. Literature review:
a. The research GAP found is specified which is ‘There is no comprehensive review of the cold chain shipping solutions. The structure and components of the shipping solutions are not specified or standardized by any studies.’ which states the importance of the study.
b. The purpose of the study is specified as well, which is ‘A conceptual model detailing the classification of the cold chain shipping solutions will be proposed.’
3. Methodology:
a. Why this method is selected is stated.
b. How the method will be validated is added and specified.
4. Conclusion:
a. Future possibilities are added.
5. Language: the grammar and languages used are modified.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes an overview of methods for cold chain packaging. In my opinion, it can be published only after major revisions according to the following remarks.
Major
First, the title and the classification of the paper are, in my opinion, incorrect. The paper is basically a review and therefore should be so classified. Moreover, the title mentions “A conceptual model for”, but it seems too ambitious. A classification, however accurate and structured, cannot be called a model. A new title could be “A comprehensive review of modern cold chain shipping solutions” and the type of paper should be “Review”.
Moreover, it is not clear the “connection” with topics of the journal Sustainability; please, give more details about it.
Section 2 “Literature review” it is better to rename as “Background” since the literature review is the focus of the paper.
Section 3 is too short. It is better to put the contents in the following section.
The conclusions should be extended to highlight the limitations and criticalities of current technologies, the technological challenges to be faced, and whether there are any innovations under investigation to overcome the highlighted limitations.
Minor
line 95: [2], [6], [7] should be [2,6,7].
lines 115-172: the text in lines 61-115 is repeated.
Some references in the text are not numbered (for instance, line 179, line 322, line 433, line 474).
Figure 1 is too small (the text is not so readable), please enlarge it. In Figure 1 there are several typos: “aritcle”, “webnars”).
Line 257, please check the text “on the protection, convenience functions”; it is not clear.
Figure 2 is too small (the text is not so readable), please enlarge it. In Figure 2 there is a typo: “Chnage”).
line 297: [14], [15] should be [14,15].
Table [2] please check “Flex 96family[11]” why [11]? Idem, “Chill-Pak[20]”.
line 387: [39], [45] should be [29,45].
line 399: [18], [31] should be [18,31].
line 450 please check “. And many shipping…“ (a new sentence cannot start with “and”). Idem, line 508.
line 457: [18], [30] should be [18,30].
The format of the references does not conform to the journal's instructions.
Author Response
The following changes have been made:
1. Title: the title has been changed to ‘A comprehensive review of modern cold chain shipping solutions’. The type of the paper has been changed to “Review”.
2. Literature review: this section has been changed to ‘Background’ so it does not confuse the audiences since section 4 is about the discussion of the literature review as well.
3. Method: this section has been expanded to include why this method was selected and how it will be validated.
4. Conclusion: the limitations and challenges of the current technologies are added, and future possibilities are added as well.
5. Reference formatting:
a. All the above-mentioned reference issues have been changed.
i. The unnumbered references in the text were numbers or removed.
1. Line 179, reference number was added.
2. Line 354 (former line 322): the sentence was removed.
3. Line 467 (former line 433): reference number was added.
4. Line 509 (former line 474): reference number was added.
ii. In line 95, 297, 387, 399, 457: all the reference numbers are modified from [x], [y] to [x,y].
b. the format has been adjusted and updated which now conforms to the journal’s requirements.
6. Others:
a. Figure 1 was removed since it did not demonstrate the inclusion of the sources clearly. Instead, statements about it are added in the paragraph.
b. Figure 2 was enlarged and the typo was corrected.
c. The grammar and languages were rechecked and corrected.
i. For ‘lines 115-172: the text in lines 61-115 is repeated’: line 115-172 was removed.
ii. For ‘Line 257, please check the text “on the protection, convenience functions”; it is not clear.’ : the whole paragraph was rewritten.
iii. In line 483 (former line 450): the beginning ‘And’ was removed.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest to publish the paper after minor revisions:
Line 605: "Snyder (2019)" should be "Snyder [14]"
Tables 1 and 2 can be enlarged up to the page limit.
In Table 2, "KoolTemp Eco-Flex 96 family[11]", why [11]? AND "Chill-Pak[20]", why [20]?
Lines 859 and 907: "Tsang et al. (2018)" should be "Tsang et al. [46]"
Author Response
The following chages have been made:
- In line 250: Snyder (2019) was changed to Snyder [14]
- Table 1 and 2 were enlarged up to the page limit.
- In Table 2, for "KoolTemp Eco-Flex 96 family[11]", '[11]' was removed; for "Chill-Pak[20]": '[20]' was removed.
-
In lines 464 and 505: "Tsang et al. (2018)" was changed to "Tsang et al. [46]".
