Research on Resilience Evaluation of Green Building Supply Chain Based on ANP-Fuzzy Model
Jozef Mosiej
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are some points must be improved before considering the publication.
1. The reason of adoption ANP and Fuzzy logic to the study's problem is weak. (There are several MCDM methods that can be used why the study must apply ANP and why fuzzy is necessary for the problem).
2. Some works related MCDM methods and supply chain or logistics are still ignored from the review such as
- Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers, Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10174.
- Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 114-136. - Improving the intellectual capital management approach using the hybrid decision method, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 670 – 691.
3. Column Refs in Table 1 lacks references.
4. The discussion part should be improved and focusing on more comparisons with other related works for both methods and area of application. Trying to compare benefits and weaknesses of your works with other past works to help the readers realize and can select the proper approach to their works.
5. The limitations of work should be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed work is not a typical article with a large number of research results. However, the work is of great scientific and technical value for designers and contractors of green buildings. The main direction of research is focused around the supply chain. However, I did not find a clear explanation in the work why the authors dealt only with the "green supply chain" and not traditional construction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Research on resilience evaluation of green building supply chain may be of importance to the industry. The supply chain characteristics of green building deserve extensive research. However, in order to emphasize the added value of the paper, the authors are advised to address the following comments.
1. Abstract
The abstract states characteristics of a green building supply chain without detail and without indicating the difference from a usual supply chain. Authors are advised to state the research question and the answer given. All this through reformulation for better understanding.
2. Introduction
A. The introduction presents concepts on which the research is based without explaining them. It is recommended that the authors present definitions for the relevant concepts, including green building and supply chain, to explain what is special about a green building supply chain.
B. The paper notes that there is a lack of research on green building supply chain resilience assessment but it is not clear what the significance of this conclusion is. It is recommended that the authors rephrase the conclusion for better understanding.
C. The paper does not present a suitable and comprehensive background for understanding the issue. It is recommended to set aside a separate chapter to present the background, explaining the significance of the research topic - resilience assessment of a green building supply chain. It should be detailed how this supply chain is different from a usual building supply chain. In addition, it is recommended to refer to the digital technologies that are used in green building and have implications for the supply chain, such as BIM for its various applications.
3. Materials and Methods
A. Beyond the need to correct acronyms, it is necessary to establish the ANP method by presenting support for the method, references that establish the proposed application and a full description of it.
B. The presentation of the supply chain of green building is described with the addition of "green elements". It is necessary to specify what those elements are with references in the context of a supply chain. All this in the background chapter for the proposed study.
C. A description of stakeholder participation in the green building supply chain should be in the background chapter of the study. Authors are advised to draft the methodology chapter separately from its background presentation, for better understanding. Both in connection with the cooperation, and in connection with the flow of information, it is important to refer to the integration of BIM in green building. Authors are advised to establish the background including this special combination based on a literature review before presenting the methodology.
D. Presentation of financial flow and to consumers in green building in the methodology chapter is out of place and lacks references. Authors are advised to base their arguments on the basis of a literature review in a separate chapter suitable for this.
E. The materials and methods are presented too generally and without an explanation of how they were used. The paper describes 8 experts without explaining their background on the subject, experience, and criteria for their selection. It is recommended that the authors base the selection of experts, comprehensively describe to whom the questionnaires were sent, who the respondents are, how they are related to the supply chain, their background in green building and their professional distribution, to present a reflection of the supply chain.
4. Case Study
A. The study describes a case study planned to receive green building certification. It is not clear according to which rating system the certification was conducted, which green building consultants participated, and which construction method they used. It is recommended that the authors provide more detail about data implicating the result.
B. The paper mentions modern electronic communication equipment in the supply chain but does not specify what it is. This data, as well as all the stakeholders belonging to this type of supply chain, should be presented in the study. Authors are advised to present and refer to all the data in relation to the means of communication that affect the supply chain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of my comments are still ignored, so the quality of paper is still not accepted for publication. All comments must be responded properly and academically.
1. The reason of adoption ANP and Fuzzy logic to the study's problem is weak. (There are several MCDM methods that can be used why the study must apply ANP and why fuzzy is necessary for the problem).
Validation: partially done, only advantages of methods are provided. The linkage between applied method and the study's problem is still weak.
2. Some works related MCDM methods and supply chain or logistics are still ignored from the review such as
- Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers, Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10174.
- Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 114-136. - Improving the intellectual capital management approach using the hybrid decision method, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 670 – 691.
Validation: not incoporated
3. Column Refs in Table 1 lacks references.
Validation: done
4. The discussion part should be improved and focusing on more comparisons with other related works for both methods and area of application. Trying to compare benefits and weaknesses of your works with other past works to help the readers realize and can select the proper approach to their works.
Validation: done
5. The limitations of work should be added.
Validation: done
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made several significant revisions to the submitted manuscript. However, it is recommended to refer to all the required corrections and improve the second version for accuracy and understanding.
1. Introduction
A. Defining the supply chain of green building. The authors pointed out that "Green building is the crucial object of sustainable development of the construction industry. If the green building supply chain is interrupted frequently, it will cause the supply chain to be paralyzed, seriously hindering the growth of green buildings. Based on this, this paper constructs the resilience evaluation index system of green building supply chain". However, green building is not the decisive object of sustainable development of the construction industry, but on the contrary, sustainability is considered as the purpose of green building. As a result, the supply chain should serve social, economic, and environmental goals. Since the paper mainly refers to the economic aspect, it is again recommended to precisely define the uniqueness of the supply chain and how this paper refers to it. Furthermore, supply chain delay is not unique to green building. Because of this, it is again recommended to explain how the paper meets the special features of green building in the supply chain.
B. Defining the importance of BIM integration in the green building supply chain. BIM has a decisive role in the supply chain in the social and environmental aspect and not only in the economic aspect and this should be widely expressed. Helping to present the uniqueness can be done using green BIM features. Therefore, it is again recommended to the authors to present an extensive overview of green BIM applications to improve the supply chain and project results, while using references from the literature to present a detailed explanation.
2. Case Study
The paper mentions "modern electronic communication equipment" in the supply chain but does not specify what it is. This data, as well as all the stakeholders belonging to this type of supply chain, should be presented in the study. Authors are advised to present and refer to all the data in relation to the means of communication that affect the supply chain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments have been completely addressed. The paper can be now accepted for publication. Congratulation!!!
