Green Supplier Assessment and Selection for Sea Cucumber (Apostichopus japonicus) Processing Enterprise: Case Study in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Need to improve your citation format. Please make sure to follow journal citation and reference formatting, pg 2-pg4.

2. Need to improve the discussion, and discuss the results precisely rather than explaining the data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Understand and moderate but can be improved for better clarity and understanding.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #1:

We are truly grateful for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript, and we apologise for our mistakes. With regard to your comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:

 

Question 1: Need to improve your citation format. Please make sure to follow journal citation and reference formatting, pg 2-pg4.

Answer 1: Accepted and modified. We have checked the manuscript carefully to correct the mistakes and ensure that they follow journal citation and reference format.

 

Question 2: Need to improve the discussion, and discuss the results precisely rather than explaining the data.

Answer 2: Accepted and modified. Integrated your comment and the comment by Reviewer #3 (There's no discussion of potential practical challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology, which is crucial for readers to understand its real-world applicability. And the proposed operators can be extended to Fermatean fuzzy sets https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012. Please consider citing them and commenting on them in the paper.). And Reviewer #4 (In the Discussion section you must compare your results with the results of other studies. Some policy implications can be mentioned in the Discussion section.), after careful consideration, we refined the discussion and added a more precise discussion of the results. The possible challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology are considered. The results were compared with other studies, and the future research was discussed 5 new references were cited. Some policy implications are also being discussed in the section.

 

49. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
50. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2019, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002
51. Olson, J.; Clay, P.M.; Silva, P.P.D. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Marine Policy. 2014, 43(2014), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001
52. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R.. Fermatean fuzzy sets. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 2020, 11(2), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0
53. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R. Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2019, 85, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012

 

Question 3: Understand and moderate but can be improved for better clarity and understanding.

Answer 3: Accepted and modified. We have checked the manuscript carefully to correct the mistakes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Article is well written, and all the analysis was performed appropriately to straightforwardly discuss the problems of the sea cucumbers’ supplier selection under the condition of sustainable development with a long-term aim to establish a green supplier assessment. To this extent I have only some minor comments for the authors and a couple recommendations/questions that could consider discussing in this article or in future studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2:

We are truly grateful for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript, and we apologise for our mistakes. With regard to your comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:

 

Question 1: Regarding the acquisition of the product, in my knowledge, there is a high percentage of smaller or bigger industries buing the sea cucumbers from self-employed divers/fishermen that are using inappropriate methods for fishing and zero knowledge on sustainable fishing. What is the authors' comment on that? I would suggest the authors to include a small paragraph mentioning this problem and if this could be considered in future studies, even though I understand it is complex factor.

Answer 1: Explain. We selected case companies do not buy sea cucumbers from divers/fishermen because the quality of sea cucumbers purchased from them varies and the retailers are generally small enough to provide a stable supply.

 

Question 2: Is this study considering the imported sea cucumbers from suppliers outside China? If no, why?

Answer 2: Explain and modified. This study did not consider the imported sea cucumbers from suppliers outside China. Presently, China is a country with the largest sea cucumber farming production of 222,707 tons in the whole world in 2021. It accounts for about 99 % of the world 's total output. We have added more information in introduction.

 

Question 3: Regarding the food safety management. Will novel thermal and non-thermal (for instance: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020833), green techniques be considered for adaptation from the sea cucumber industry during processing, to reduce the cost, the CO2 footprint, and increase the quality of the final products while meeting the consumers demands?

Answer 3: Accepted and modified. Novel thermal and non-thermal, green technologies will be considered for adaptation from the sea cucumber industry during processing, to reduce the cost, the CO2 footprint, and increase the quality of the final products while meeting the consumers demands, and cited 2 new references.

 

1. Ekonomou, S. I.; Boziaris, I. S. Non-Thermal Methods for Ensuring the Microbiological Quality and Safety of Seafood. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11, 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020833
2. Duan, X.; Zhang, M.; Li, X.; Mujumdar, A. Ultrasonically Enhanced Osmotic Pretreatment of Sea Cucumber Prior to Micro-wave Freeze Drying. Drying Technology, 2008, 26(4), 420-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373930801929201

 

Question 4: Lines 48-49: Please, rewrite this sentence.

Answer 4: Accepted and modified. We have checked the manuscript carefully to correct the mistakes.

 

Question 5: Table 4.On the first column, please, always start with an uppercase letter for consistency.

Answer 5: Accepted and modified. We have modified the mistakes in Table 4.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract mentions "economic benefits and environmental impacts" but lacks specificity. It should provide a clearer indication of what specific environmental impacts and economic benefits are being discussed.

2. The paper briefly introduces the problem but lacks a comprehensive background section to provide context for readers unfamiliar with the sea cucumber industry and green supply chain management.

3. The objectives are broadly stated as establishing a green supplier assessment system. Specific goals and research questions should be articulated to guide the study effectively.

4. The methodology section lacks depth. It would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the steps involved in creating the green supplier assessment indicator system and the application of the AHP method.

5. The case study is introduced but lacks sufficient detail about the selected sea cucumber processing enterprise, potentially leaving readers with questions about its size, location, or relevance.

6. The paper introduces FCE but doesn't delve into how it works or why it's chosen as the evaluation method. Readers may struggle to grasp its significance.

7. The paper lacks quantitative data or results from the case study, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.

8.  There's no discussion of potential practical challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology, which is crucial for readers to understand its real-world applicability.

9. I would like to review some discussions about your future studies. For instance, the proposed operators can be extended to Fermatean fuzzy sets https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012. Please consider citing them and commenting on them in the paper.

10. The conclusions mention key factors but don't provide specific recommendations or actionable insights that sea cucumber processing enterprises can apply.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check all the expressions very carefully. I found some grammatical errors. Please polish the writing and English of the manuscript.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #3:

We are truly grateful for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript, and we apologise for our mistakes. With regard to your comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:

 

Question 1: The abstract mentions "economic benefits and environmental impacts" but lacks specificity. It should provide a clearer indication of what specific environmental impacts and economic benefits are being discussed.

Answer 1: Accepted and modified. We have added specific environmental impacts and economic benefits in the abstract section.

 

Question 2: The paper briefly introduces the problem but lacks a comprehensive background section to provide context for readers unfamiliar with the sea cucumber industry and green supply chain management.

Answer 2: Accepted and modified. We have added more information in introduction about sea cucumber industry and green supply chain management, and cited 3 new references.

 

3. Liang, Z. X. Exploring Safety Issues and Traceability in the Fish Supply Chain Line. Modern Agricultural Machinery, 2022, (01), 103-104.
4. Tang, Q.; Sun, X. Z. Analysis and Improvement of Supply Chain Inventory Management Strategies in the Aquatic Industry. China Storage & Transport, 2021, (07), 173-174. https://doi.org/10.16301/j.cnki.cn12-1204/f.2021.07.081
5. Wang, W. P. Study on Depletion Control in Cold Chain Logistics of Fresh Agricultural Products. China Journal of Commerce, 2021, (24), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.19699/j.cnki.issn2096-0298.2021.24.077

 

Question 3: The objectives are broadly stated as establishing a green supplier assessment system. Specific goals and research questions should be articulated to guide the study effectively.

Answer 3: Accepted and modified. Integrated your comment and the comment by Reviewer #4 (In the Introduction section, it is recommended to create a paragraph to present the novelty of the research.), after careful consideration, we have reorganized the introduction and provide the specific goals, research questions and novelty as a separate paragraph at the end of the introduction.

 

Question 4: The methodology section lacks depth. It would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the steps involved in creating the green supplier assessment indicator system and the application of the AHP method.

Answer 4: Accepted and modified. We have restructured the article and detailed explanation of the steps involved in creating the green supplier assessment indicator system and the application of the AHP method.

 

Question 5: The case study is introduced but lacks sufficient detail about the selected sea cucumber processing enterprise, potentially leaving readers with questions about its size, location, or relevance.

Answer 5: Accepted and modified. We have added more information in case enterprises information to give the reader an idea of their size, location and relevance.

 

Question 6: The paper introduces FCE but doesn't delve into how it works or why it's chosen as the evaluation method. Readers may struggle to grasp its significance.

Answer 6: Accepted and modified. We have added more information in FCE and detailed its specific steps and their benefits.

 

Question 7: The paper lacks quantitative data or results from the case study, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.

Answer 7: Explain. The case enterprise we selected are leading enterprise with a high percentage of production in the province. In addition, the suppliers selected by the processing companies are highly representative of the entire supply chain and can represent the local actual situation to a certain extent

 

Question 8: There's no discussion of potential practical challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology, which is crucial for readers to understand its real-world applicability.

Answer 8: Accepted and modified. Integrated your comment and the comment by Reviewer #1 (Need to improve the discussion, and discuss the results precisely rather than explaining the data.), Reviewer #3 (The proposed operators can be extended to Fermatean fuzzy sets https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012. Please consider citing them and commenting on them in the paper.) and Reviewer #4 (In the Discussion section you must compare your results with the results of other studies. Some policy implications can be mentioned in the Discussion section.), after careful consideration, we refined the discussion and added a more precise discussion of the results. The possible challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology are considered. The results were compared with other studies, and the future research was discussed 5 new references were cited. Some policy implications are also being discussed in the section.

 

49. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
50. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2019, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002
51. Olson, J.; Clay, P.M.; Silva, P.P.D. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Marine Policy. 2014, 43(2014), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001
52. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R.. Fermatean fuzzy sets. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 2020, 11(2), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0
53. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R. Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2019, 85, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012

 

Question 9: I would like to review some discussions about your future studies. For instance, the proposed operators can be extended to Fermatean fuzzy sets https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012. Please consider citing them and co

mmenting on them in the paper.

Answer 9: Accepted and modified. Integrated your comment and the comment by Reviewer #1 (Need to improve the discussion, and discuss the results precisely rather than explaining the data.), Reviewer #3 (There's no discussion of potential practical challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology, which is crucial for readers to understand its real-world applicability.) and Reviewer #4 (In the Discussion section you must compare your results with the results of other studies. Some policy implications can be mentioned in the Discussion section.), after careful consideration, we refined the discussion and added a more precise discussion of the results. The possible challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology are considered. The results were compared with other studies, and the future research was discussed 5 new references were cited. Some policy implications are also being discussed in the section.

 

49. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
50. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2019, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002
51. Olson, J.; Clay, P.M.; Silva, P.P.D. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Marine Policy. 2014, 43(2014), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001
52. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R.. Fermatean fuzzy sets. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 2020, 11(2), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0
53. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R. Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2019, 85, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012

 

Question 10: The conclusions mention key factors but don't provide specific recommendations or actionable insights that sea cucumber processing enterprises can apply.

Answer 10: Accepted and modified. We explain the key influencing factors and provide specific recommendations or actionable insights that sea cucumber processing enterprises can apply.

 

Question 11: Please check all the expressions very carefully. I found some grammatical errors. Please polish the writing and English of the manuscript.

Answer 11: Accepted and modified. We have checked the manuscript carefully to correct the mistakes.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I really appreciate your work and want to congratulate you for the research conducted. I have a few recommendations:

-       In the Introduction section, it is recommended to create a paragraph to present the novelty of the research.

-       The elements in equation 9 should be explained -       The values in equation 10 are not clearly presented. The same in equations 11-18. -       In the Discussion section you must compare your results with the results of other studies. -       Some policy implications can be mentioned in the Discussion section.

 

-       Again in the conclusion you must point out the novelty and originality of the study.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #4:

We are truly grateful for your valuable comments for improving our manuscript, and we apologise for our mistakes. With regard to your comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:

 

Question 1: In the Introduction section, it is recommended to create a paragraph to present the novelty of the research.

Answer 1: Accepted and modified. Integrated your comment and the comment by Reviewer #3 (The objectives are broadly stated as establishing a green supplier assessment system. Specific goals and research questions should be articulated to guide the study effectively.), after careful consideration, We have reorganized the introduction and provide the specific goals, research questions and novelty as a separate paragraph at the end of the introduction.

 

Question 2: The elements in equation 9 should be explained.

Answer 2: Accepted and modified. We explain the elements in equation 9.

 

Question 3: The values in equation 10 are not clearly presented. The same in equations 11-18.

Answer 3: Accepted and modified. We are specific about values in equations 10 to 18.

 

Question 4: In the Discussion section you must compare your results with the results of other studies.

Some policy implications can be mentioned in the Discussion section.

Answer 4: Accepted and modified. Integrated your comment and the comment by Reviewer #1 (Need to improve the discussion, and discuss the results precisely rather than explaining the data.) and Reviewer #3 (There's no discussion of potential practical challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology, which is crucial for readers to understand its real-world applicability. And the proposed operators can be extended to Fermatean fuzzy sets https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012. Please consider citing them and commenting on them in the paper.), after careful consideration, we refined the discussion and added a more precise discussion of the results. The possible challenges or limitations in implementing the methodology are considered. The results were compared with other studies, and the future research was discussed 5 new references were cited. Some policy implications are also being discussed in the section.

 

49. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
50. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2019, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002
51. Olson, J.; Clay, P.M.; Silva, P.P.D. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Marine Policy. 2014, 43(2014), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001
52. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R.. Fermatean fuzzy sets. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 2020, 11(2), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01377-0
53. Senapati, T.; Yager, R.R. Fermatean fuzzy weighted averaging/geometric operators and its application in multi-criteria decision-making methods. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 2019, 85, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.05.012

 

Question 5: Again in the conclusion you must point out the novelty and originality of the study.

Answer 5: Accepted and modified. We again in the conclusion point out the novelty and originality of the study.