An Integrated Optimization Model of Green Supply Chain Network Design with Inventory Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has a rather low level of:
ï€ scientific novelty,
ï€ justification of the importance of conducting this research,
ï€ presentation of model,
ï€ as well as unclear results.
The quality of the presentation of article is also low.
I see no way to improve this article and recommend that the authors completely change the research before publication in journal Sustainability.
Global recommendations.
The article is poorly structured and does not meet the classical requirements.
Is the model considered by the authors in chapter 3 author's? If not, find a link to the original source. If so, it is necessary to explain formulas 1-4 in more detail. For example, why is the square root used? You can't just put the reader in front of the fact.
The issue of optimization, which the authors raised in the title of the article, is not disclosed.
I got the impression that the authors really needed to connect the proposed model with the field of ecology. For example, what value do "Potential plants" and "Opened plants" have in the model?
The article lacks a section on the practical application of the proposed model (case study). Without this section, it is not possible to evaluate whether the model "works" or not.
Specific recommendations.
The article is full of all kinds of incomprehensible phrases, inaccuracies, repetitions.
Line 34. " ... Miranda and Garrido [1] "
Line 50. "To deal with the above decision-making problem ...". What exactly is the problem, the authors did not mention a single one.
Line 63. "As we know, freight transportation is a primary contributor to climate change ..". Where does this information come from?
Line 66. "In recent years, the green supply chain has recently attracted more considerable public attention ...."
Lines 166-171. Duplication from chapter 1.
Line 416. ".. the optimal solution based on the instance 1". What is "instance 1"?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Authors need to mention which products are suitable for this study.
2. Authors need to explain why the following parameters are selected and their meanings. ??=0.9, ??=0.8, ??=0.7, ??=0.1, ??=0.08, and ??=0.06.
3. Authors need to explain why the following parameters are selected. ?? = ?. ? and ?? = ?. ?.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript deals with a recent concern about supply chain network design. It attempts to integrate a number of appraches and consider CO2 emmision costs, and draws a conclusion. It seems that this manuscript has already been revised or refined, and there seem to be no serious problems in the overall structure and language of the manuscript. After minor editorial revision, it can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend to accept the article in present form
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to all my questions.
