Criteria Clustering and Supplier Segmentation Based on Sustainable Shared Value Using BWM and PROMETHEE
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of research is fine and overall, the content is acceptable. However, there are few issues that need some clarifications, as follows:
- L27 - What factors?
- L36 - Check what is cold SC vs cold chain logistics in Fig. 1
- The term used in the manuscript was not standardised, for example: L46 - food and agricultural industries; L48, L58 - food industry; L51 - food and health sector; L57 - FMCG; L76 - factory suppliers (food and meat industry); therefore, please check.
- Please pick suitable term, either: L12, L115 - supply chain; L97, L98, L127 - supply chain management.
- L114 - who is ‘him’?
- L478 - what theory are you referring to?
- Please make sure that the contribution of research in line with the issue that has been highlighted at the beginning of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Your comments have been addressed and is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
What is the novelty of this work? I don’t think buyers will be reading this research. Why people should read this work and why researchers should cite your work, think and accordingly improve this paper.
The abstract needed to be more focused and should be able to justify the paper; I see a strong need for fine-tuning.
Kindly justify using both the MCDM tools adopted; similar studies on different issues exist and are also cited; in the beginning, authors could have provided a section on research where CSR and sustainability are being considered while conceptualising the work.
Can authors suggest how this work could be validated? The people involved in making these models should be from the higher management side and should know the latest trend. Is this work India-centric?. The shop engineers and supervisors need to gain more understanding of the latest trends and corporate vision.
Discussion and conclusion needed to be separate sections
There have to be subsections on the limitations of this work and research implications
The Covid 19 has shown how shallow the research has been and why most of the SC failed during the time of the pandemic. There have to be lessons learned. Authors should tell which demographic paper this paper belongs to.
Authors should cite recent work and more related papers of 2023. They should also avoid self-citations.
There is a need to improve the flow of the paper, especially the methodology and introduction.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Your comments have been addressed and is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall the paper is excellently written that contains all the primary parts of a research paper. However, I would like to suggest the authors to review the manuscript with respect to the following points:
1. Sentences need to be reviewed critically, some of the sentences are confusing (even in the abstract, check the second last line of abstract) while there are a lot of long sentences that do not support the reader. Try to rephrase such sentences during revision.
2. I thin authors could not check the appearance of Figure 3 in the document. it was not completely visible. Maker this correction as well while submitting the final document.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Your comments have been addressed and is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I recommend this manuscript to be published in this journal after revising the following points by author(s).
1. There are some typos. They should be corrected. Proofreading is needed.
2. How the results in Figure 2 were obtained? If possible, please provide a reference.
3. Some places in Table 1 are in bold. Please check it?
4. The use of acronyms needs revision, please define them just one time, i.e., at the first time they appear in the text, except in highlights and abstract. For example, MADM.
5. In page 7 line 238 “questionnaires based on a 9-degree hour scale”. Please check the accuracy.
6. Figure 3 has a scaling problem. Phase 1 is not clear.
7. In Page 8, between Line 279 and line 289, font size different. Please, check the font size.
8. The proposed methodology can be compared with a different MCDM method.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Your comments have been addressed and are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have tried to improve the paper, but I see lots of scope for improving this paper.
Some more references where actually this work is reported. The reason for applying these MCDM tools is given, but the same work could have been done through case studies or empirical research. How this method is better? or you needed a different research methodology?
I understand that this study is theoretical, and the corporates are not doing what is being inferred. The paper looks more at methodological research. Kindly discuss your views. Have you interviewed them on the findings?
Put limitations section 7 before conclusion section 6
Author Response
Hello
We have considered your valuable comments, which is attached.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments to the Authors
1. There are some typos. They should be corrected. For example, in line 77 (in case of thefood industry in Iran with emphasis on meat sector). In line 415, This limited number of suppliers s been influenced by the scores of…..
2. The use of acronyms needs revision, please define them just one time, i.e., at the first time they appear in the text, except in highlights and abstract. For example, VIKOR.
Author Response
Hello
Thank you for your valuable comments.
We have responded to your comments, which are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
