An Integrated Method for Locating Logistic Centers in a Rural Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors proposed a novel method in order to locate the logistic centers in rural areas, which was tested in the rural area of Lhasa.
The method is well explained and it is interesting. However, I do recommend to compare it against existing methods on the field and test it as well on benchmark instances.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reviewing. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment for detailed reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There are errors in the text (citations and acronyms)
The literature reviews must be upgraded. It is a weak part of the article.
Explain why you used the Maximal covering model? I think you have to use more suitable mathematic models for facility location, which cover all the nodes' demands (for postal operations, it is obligatory). You are counting costs; I recommend using the capacitated fixed charge facility model.
Please explain how you did the results? What kind of computation and software did you use?
The conclusions must be improved, where you compared your results with previous research in this field of science.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reviewing. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment for detailed reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall a good manuscript. Below are my details suggestions to improve the manuscript as requested.
- Stated the reason for choosing the forecast horizon from 2021 until 2025.
- Define the percentage of training data and testing data. Better if supported by references.
- In lines 219-220, it would be better to cite the report. Also, provide the reason why Lhasa has a very unbalanced ratio of outcoming and incoming cargos, which is approximately 1:9.
- In line 237, provide some reference for choosing the 1.25 times not just based on logistic practitioners.
- In lines 303-305, provide some reference to support demand point is served by the nearest logistic center only.-because of limitation of ArcGIS 10.2?
- In Table 8, there are 6 centers that showed deficits. Need further discussion regarding this matter.
- For other minors' comments please refer to the attached file. Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reviewing. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment for detailed reply.
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 address the problem of determining the location of logistics distribution centers in rural areas. The application related to the case study of Lhasa, China, is very interesting. Despite this, the paper has many weaknesses.
Main criticalities:
1) From a methodological point of view, the authors refer to well-established models. There is no innovative aspect. Therefore, the authors should better justify what isn the added value of the paper. It is the presentation of a case study. In fact, this paper seems more like an exercise than a research paper.
2) Although the Holt-Winters method, used in the paper to estimate the logistic demand for Lhasa, is well known, no bibliographic reference to it is provided: not all readers of the journal are familiar with forecasting methods.
3) It is opportune to add bibliographical references, and also a comparison, relative to other applications (similar to that presented in this paper), in which the estimates have been obtained with the Holt-Winters method.
4) In section 4.1 (second paragraph page 5) reference is made to α, β, ϒ, Lt levels and Bt trend without first explaining what they mean. As said before, not all readers can fully understand their meaning.
5) In section 4.1 (second paragraph page 6) the value of parameters resulting from the application of the Holt-Winters method in both additive and multiplicative cases are reported without explaining where the data comes from.
6) The maximal covering model (9)-(12) is exactly the one proposed in the literature, there is no new constraint or element in the objective function that characterizes it.
7) The authors use the radial distances for evaluating the number covered villages (Table 4). Considering rural areas, wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider actual travel distance, based on existing road infrastructure?
8) In the explanation of initial and investment constraints provided on page 13, the authors should point out that the inclusion of these components refers to fixed-charge type models, where the presence of 0/1 binary variables makes the model computationally difficult. In particular, how do you use the initial investiment cost given in Table 7 in model (9)-(12)?
9) In the paper there is no mention of how the model is solved, how the model is implemented, the sw environment used, the hw platform used, the computational time. This information is qquiate relevant and it is necessary.
10) In the discussion the authors say that only 12 of the selected 22 distribution centers could make profit. Given the high initial cost I think that considering 12 distribution centers to serve rural areas is still a lot. Why wasn't the simple plant location model considered for the final selection to determine the set of centers that minimizes total logistics costs?
10) The citations reported in the references are strongly biased towards works published by Chinese authors. In particular, a large number of works related to real applications and case studies relevant to the topic under study have been recently proposed in the literature but have not been considered.
Authors are invited to extend or modify the references they have proposed.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my modest opinion, the paper is outstanding. The authors have carefully structured the manuscript to have the appropriate structure, head, and tail. It is clear, precise, concise, limited to the explanation of the essential elements of the article only. The originality of their work is clearly emphasized and highlighted. The novelties related to the several combined methodologies important in logistics, e.g., from the point of view of resource allocation problem all over to conducting a relatively simple predictor for forecasting future scenarios are in a tremendously well and clear way presented. Accordingly, it was not difficult for the reviewer of this review to give maximally positive points for all important issues, i.e.: 1) the content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research; 2) The research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods are clearly stated; 3) The arguments and discussion of findings are coherent, balanced and compelling; 4) The results are clearly presented and the article is adequately referenced; 5.) The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article; 6) Originality, Contribution to Scholarship Quality of Structure, and Clarity Logical Coherence is evident.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have the following comments for the study
- The authors should clearly highlight the research gap covered in this study.
- The Eq (1) ~ Eq (7) each requires some details. How these equations were formulated and logical reasoning for each?
- The authors should mention all notations in a single Notation Table.
- What are the major insights from this study? How it will help managers to achieve their goals in logistics site selections?
Reviewer 4 Report
I was asked to review the paper "site selection for logistics centers in rual areas". There are some typing mistakes in the manuscript, therefore I suggested proofreading. The literature seems to be old and can be updated. In addtion, the discussion must be improved (link to literature and implications).
