Food Supply Chain Sustainability Strategy for Fresh Retailer and Multi-Output Random Fresh Suppliers after COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The paper "Food Supply Chain Sustainability Strategy for Fresh Retailer and Multi-output Random Fresh Suppliers after COVID-19" falls within the scope of the journal "Sustainability" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. A lot of core elements of one well-written and performed study is missing, so the paper needs  improvements.

1) Clear aims, the main contributions, and novelty are missing in the abstract. 

2) In the introduction section the following tasks should be fulfilled: the introduction should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: What are the gaps in literature? What are the main aims of this article?"

3) Literature review should be updated. Please read and use the following sources:

Kherchi, I. (2020). Threats and opportunities for global food companies identifying social and environmental issues in food value chain to create shared value. ECONOMICS-Innovative and Economic Research, 8(1), 61-72.

Balázs, G., Mészáros, Z. G., & Péterfi, C. A. (2022). Process Measurement and Analysis in a Retail Chain to Improve Reverse Logistics Efficiency. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 5(2), 152-175.

4) Discussion including detailed implications, and limitations, should also be part of the paper.

5) - Directions for future research should be added in detail.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on this paper. These comments and suggestions have greatly helped greatly helped improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered the concerns raised in the comments and thoroughly addressed all the comments made by the reviewers and editors. We have incorporated most of the comments and suggestions wherever appropriate. Our response also reflects the key changes in this paper and organizes them under each comment. We hope that this version satisfies the requirements of the reviewers and editors. Our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments are organized below in a point-to-point manner. We believe that this version satisfies the expectations of the reviewers and editor. However, we are standing by ready for any further changes the editor and the reviewers deem necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript explains the study on supply chain coordination strategy of fresh retailer and multi-output random fresh suppliers. The manuscript could be published after major corrections as follows:
1. An abstract should includes short intro, method, main findings and discussion, short conclusion. Method is missing. 
2. Introduction - no references for paragraph 4-7. 
3. Introduction - lack on the information on major finding of other studies that discussed the supply chain coordination strategy during COVID-19
4. Why you need literature review section? should be combine with introduction. please follow the format i.e. 1. Introduction, 2. Material and Methods 3. Results and Discussion 4. Conclusion.....
5. Provide overall flow chart of methodology, so that reader could understand better
6. For section 4 Results and Discussion, authors only provide mathematical formulae. Suggestion one sub-section to discuss overall results critically and scientifically by comparing with other studies available in the literature (Citation). Highlight the contribution of the research with government policy, SDG2030, etc. why the research is important?
7. Conclusion too long. One paragraph only

Author Response

We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on this paper. These comments and suggestions have greatly helped greatly helped improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered the concerns raised in the comments and thoroughly addressed all the comments made by the reviewers and editors. We have incorporated most of the comments and suggestions wherever appropriate. Our response also reflects the key changes in this paper and organizes them under each comment. We hope that this version satisfies the requirements of the reviewers and editors. Our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments are organized below in a point-to-point manner. We believe that this version satisfies the expectations of the reviewers and editor. However, we are standing by ready for any further changes the editor and the reviewers deem necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Overall this is a rushed and too short paper with many problems that need to be fixed:

1. The abstract isn't structured according to the journal's guidelines.

2. The use of English is poor. Too many grammatical and syntax errors exist. Maybe the authors need to ask for professional help. 

3) There is essentially no introduction section. The authors need to present a research background and explain what other research has shown and how their research contributes and differs. The authors only briefly talk about the impact of COVID on the supply chain without presenting a proper research background concerning supply chain challenges and technological advancements to overcome them. The introduction needs to place the research in a broader context and then, towards it's conclusion, focus on the specific topic. It is suggested that they discuss research advancements using advanced technologies for sustainable supply chain operations. The following papers need to be cited on this basis:

1.Han, X., & Chen, Q. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management: Dual sales channel adoption, product portfolio and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125127.

2.Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Kanakis, E. (2022). A Smart-Contract Enabled Blockchain Traceability System Against Wine Supply Chain Counterfeiting. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (pp. 477-484). Springer, Cham.

3.Munsif, R., Zubair, M., Aziz, A., & Zafar, M. N. (2021). Industrial air emission pollution: potential sources and sustainable mitigation. In Environmental Emissions. IntechOpen.

4. Kechagias, E. P., Chatzistelios, G., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Apostolou, P. (2022). Digital transformation of the maritime industry: A cybersecurity systemic approach. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 37, 100526.

4) The literature review is too brief and unstructured. It needs to be greatly expanded and the authors should elaborate on the research findings. The authors need to explain what gap was identified in the literature and what is the contribution of their research to the scientific community. 

5)There is very little connection with the Sustainability journal. The authors mention the term sustainable with no explanation and connection to the real topic. They need to connect their mathematical model with sustainability. 

6) There is no testing of the model and no critical evaluation of its significance. Also, the paper is too short and includes no qualitative analysis of the results nor any interpretation or elaboration on them. A mandatory discussion section is also missing. 

7) The conclusions are just a brief summary. They need to be rewritten, presenting the findings in brief but also the limitations of the research and some clear future research goals. 

Author Response

We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on this paper. These comments and suggestions have greatly helped greatly helped improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered the concerns raised in the comments and thoroughly addressed all the comments made by the reviewers and editors. We have incorporated most of the comments and suggestions wherever appropriate. Our response also reflects the key changes in this paper and organizes them under each comment. We hope that this version satisfies the requirements of the reviewers and editors. Our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments are organized below in a point-to-point manner. We believe that this version satisfies the expectations of the reviewers and editor. However, we are standing by ready for any further changes the editor and the reviewers deem necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have addressed in the proper way my suggestions and the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for their satisfaction with the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for their satisfaction with the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I repeat most of the comments as the authors have not followed them.

1. The abstract still isn't structured according to the journal's guidelines.

2. The use of English continues to be poor. Too many grammatical and syntax errors exist. Maybe the authors need to ask for professional help. It is basic knowledge that for example a sentence cant start with "And".

3) The authors have not added the required papers! The authors need to present a research background and explain what other research has shown and how their research contributes and differs. The authors only briefly talk about the impact of COVID on the supply chain without presenting a proper research background concerning supply chain challenges and technological advancements to overcome them. The introduction needs to place the research in a broader context and then, towards it's conclusion, focus on the specific topic. It is suggested that they discuss research advancements using advanced technologies for sustainable supply chain operations. The following papers need to be cited on this basis:

1.Han, X., & Chen, Q. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management: Dual sales channel adoption, product portfolio and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125127.

2.Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Kanakis, E. (2022). A Smart-Contract Enabled Blockchain Traceability System Against Wine Supply Chain Counterfeiting. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (pp. 477-484). Springer, Cham.

3.Munsif, R., Zubair, M., Aziz, A., & Zafar, M. N. (2021). Industrial air emission pollution: potential sources and sustainable mitigation. In Environmental Emissions. IntechOpen.

4. Kechagias, E. P., Chatzistelios, G., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Apostolou, P. (2022). Digital transformation of the maritime industry: A cybersecurity systemic approach. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 37, 100526.

4) The literature review has not been expanded at all! It needs to be greatly expanded and the authors should elaborate on the research findings. The authors need to explain what gap was identified in the literature and what is the contribution of their research to the scientific community. 

5)There is still little connection with the Sustainability journal. The authors mention the term sustainable with no explanation and connection to the real topic. They need to connect their mathematical model with sustainability. 

6) There is no testing of the model and no critical evaluation of its significance. Also, the paper is too short and includes no qualitative analysis of the results nor any interpretation or elaboration on them. The section added by the authors isn't a discussion section as their title suggests. Please carefully read the guidelines!

7) The conclusions are just a brief summary and the authors just rephrased some sentences. They need to be rewritten, presenting the findings in brief but also the limitations of the research and some clear future research goals. 

Author Response

We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on this paper. These comments and suggestions have greatly helped greatly helped improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered the concerns raised in the comments and thoroughly addressed all the comments made by the reviewers and editors. We have incorporated most of the comments and suggestions wherever appropriate. Our response also reflects the key changes in this paper and organizes them under each comment. We hope that this version satisfies the requirements of the reviewers and editors. Our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments are organized below in a point-to-point manner. We believe that this version satisfies the expectations of the reviewers and editor. However, we are standing by ready for any further changes the editor and the reviewers deem necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have made some improvements, however, not all that was requested was done. I think that the paper has now reached a publishable state but the authors need to fix the language and coherence issues. 

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for their satisfaction with the revised manuscript. We have fixed the language and coherence issues of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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 paper "Study on Supply Chain Coordination Strategy of Fresh Retailer and Multi-output Random Fresh Suppliers " falls within the scope of the journal " Sustainability" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. 
The paper has potential but should be additionally improved with the following major corrections.
- Keywords are not defined well. Only random yield is the keyword, while others appear only a few times in the text. Please correct it and choose the proper keywords as supplier, supply chain...
- Literature review should be improved with a new date relevant studies. Please consider the following studies:
1) - Biswas, T. K., & Das, M. C. (2020). Selection of the barriers of supply chain management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19 impacts. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), 1-12.
2) Fazlollahtabar, H., & Kazemitash, N. (2021). Green supplier selection based on the information system performance evaluation using the integrated best-worst method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering.
3) Ali, Z., Mahmood, T., Ullah, K., & Khan, Q. (2021). Einstein Geometric Aggregation Operators using a Novel Complex Interval-valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Setting with Application in Green Supplier Chain Management. Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 2(1), 105-134.
4) Durmić, E., Stević, Ž., Chatterjee, P., Vasiljević, M., & Tomašević, M. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection using combined FUCOM–Rough SAW model. Reports in mechanical engineering, 1(1), 34-43.
- Format of equations should be improved. For example equations (1), (20).
- Please proved more proof and examples for your approach.
-  Write discussion with implications limitations...
- About half used references are out of date. Please update it.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors may want to explain why and how those models they design can be empirically applied. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes the study on supply chain coordination strategy of fresh retailer and multi-output random fresh suppliers.
1. Short conclusion should be provided in the abstract.

2. Introduction lack on the information regards to comparison with other studies - supply chain fresh retailer. what made your research different with other research available?

3. Literature review insufficient. References outdated. Number of references not enough. Please cite more references within 5 years time.

4. Check figure 2. Transpottation? How you derive figure 1 and 2? explain.

5. Authors did not discussed critically and scientifically by citing others authors works. i.e. What is the comparison between the model you develop with other model in the literature? 

6. References - outdated

7. Conclusion too long. 1 paragraph only.

Overall, the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication. The manuscript should clearly relate with the sustainability scopes - relate with national/international policy, sustainable development goals 2030, related statistics, etc.