Shuttle-Based Storage and Retrieval Systems Designs from Multi-Objective Perspectives: Total Investment Cost, Throughput Rate and Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study caters to an important issue in warehouses. However, some corrections are required before publication.
Kindly add the findings in the abstract section.
The introduction section has some coherence issues. The objectives and contribution of this paper should be clearly mentioned in the introduction section.
The literature review section required certain upgradation regarding the relevant study and logical flow. the current LR seems to be a literature summary rather than a literature review.
Section 3 is well presented
The discussion section has required a comparison with similar models. Further, the graphs need more explanation.
The implication of this study should be mentioned as a separate section, so, the reader can get a better idea about the application of the study.
Limitations and future scope are missing. kindly add in the revised version.
Add some recent studies
Some strong statements are given. These statements should be supported by previous studies.
Proofreading is required
Author Response
The reviewer comments are in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is an interesting piece of work to read and would provide an important contribution to a less explored area in the international research agenda. The manuscript is well reasoned and contains rich information about the topic. However, I have some concerns that I will be mentioned in the following part.
a) The paper digs in a well-established area of research.
b) The manuscript was written in good language.
c) Please indicate the location of this study in the abstract
d) Introduction: seems to be long and contains some unnecessary repeated sentences that are already explained earlier.
e) Please add the paper structure at the end of your introduction.
f) Literature review: covers a wide range of studies and seems to be updated with recent papers, although I think, the author/s needs to divide it into sections to make it easier for the reader to follow the main ideas of the review. Please cite following papers:
- Sawadogo, D., Sané, S. and Kaboré, S.E. (2022), "Sustainability management and the success of international development projects: the role of political and social skills", Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-02-2022-0020.
Conclusion: seems to me be results and findings of the study. There should be a deeper discussion of the results.
g) I think you can display your ideas in a more attractive view.
Thanks
Author Response
The reviewer comments are in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I'll give you some suggestions to improve the overall quality of the paper.
Discussions and conclusions are very scarce. In particular, in the disuccioni the authors limit themselves to describing the figures without inserting critical comments on the basis of the literature and the current economic scenario. The conclusions do not present enough depth and do not identify future avenues for research and practical implications for which they must be rewritten.
Author Response
The reviewer comments are in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
It is a great effort to perform a comparison of two shuttle-based 9 storage and retrieval system (SBS/RS) configurations developed on flexible or non- 10 flexible travel policy of shuttles in the systems.
Suggest justification on why total investment cost, throughput rate per hour and energy consumption per throughput were important to be studied.
The research method/design was not described in detail: Experimental design and the software used.
There is not much discussion on the result of the study.
The authors may want write contribution of the study:practical and theoretical.
Author Response
The reviewer comments are in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This is a nice documentation of modeling and simulation in warehousing. And it deliver the comparison that it promises.
Energy use per transaction seems to me to be depending on your assumptions and need some more explanation? I assume that energy use will have some statistical distribution?
The model lack maintenance. All mechanical devices have a mean time between failure, and when visiting such warehouse system it is normal to see some units down for maintenance.
Author Response
The reviewer comments are in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
An implication section needs to be added, as it is also mentioned in the previous revision.
Some more references are required, as the no of cited references is very low.
Author Response
The response letter file is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
