Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Possibilities of Sale Forecasting Textile Products with a Short Life Cycle

Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15517; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115517

by Peter Kačmáry^*

and Norbert Lörinc

Reviewer 1:

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer 3:

Reviewer 4:

Reviewer 5:

Juan Carlos Meléndez Rodríguez

Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15517; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115517

Submission received: 8 September 2023 / Revised: 22 October 2023 / Accepted: 30 October 2023 / Published: 1 November 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is important to update data - forecasts for 2019 are not serious as now is second part of 2023. There are comments on influence of cold weather in 2019, but there could be also very significant influence of Covid-19 on demand for textile industry products taking into account limited mobility and face-to-face activities due restrictions.

Several references could be updated to demonstrate that authors are familiar with recent scientific findings, for example, Seger, J.; Hindls, R. The statistical methods in market economy, 1st ed.; Victoria Publishing, Prague, The Czech Rep., 1995, pp. 495 257-338.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 1)

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

(x) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Response 1:

As authors, we agree that the forecast for 2019 is not current. We also agree with the statement that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period would significantly affect the described business in this industry. And there is the point.

However, the authors tried to point out the possibilities of forecasting in a period when external influences are not so fundamental, no such as in the aforementioned period of various restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis. We considered the period in 2017-2019 to be a relatively stable period, and the period in 2022-2023 (i.e. after the COVID-19 crisis) is starting to resemble the period from before the crisis, as regards the view of this market segment.

Therefore, it was not in the interest of the authors to build a forecast for this specific period, because a forecast based on classical quantitative methods would not be relevant and applicable. But, it may be as an inspiration for another study of making forecast in specific conditions in the future.

We incorporated this remark of yours into the article, in chapter 2, to make this intention of the authors more clear.

“The data that was selected for the forecast was from the period between year 2017-2018 and the forecast was made for 2019. Although these data are current, they come from a relatively stable period, with regards to view of this market segment. The later data was influenced by the crisis caused by the global pandemic crisis of COVID-19, and for that reason it would not be appropriate to use this data. Forecasts on this basis mentioned above would not be relevant and applicable. The period 2022 till present (i.e. post COVID-19 crisis period) seems to resemble the 2018-2019, but now there is a lack of insufficient data.”

Point 2:

Response 2:

This reference was replaced by:

Makridakis, S.; Wheelwright S.C.; Hyndman, R.J. Forecasting methods and applications, 3rd ed.; Wiley India, Delhi, 2013, pp. 537-549.

Other publications, as they were listed in WoS, were found according to the topic and methodology, chronologically sorted. Authors did their best to be referenced the most current articles.

English proofreading was done again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors (i) The paper is structured and has a good bit of discussion. (ii) The selection of methodology is not a novel one. (iii) The diagnostic analysis is not adequate. (iv) The substantiation of the problem needs to be revised. (v) Connect discussions, research gaps and future research scope.

This paper may be good for a case study but needs extensive revision to possibly qualify for a journal like Sustainability. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 2)

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

(x) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

The paper is structured and has a good bit of discussion.

Response 1:

In spite of that, there was added some more information regarding the data used in the manuscript in the chapter 2.

Point 2:

The selection of methodology is not a novel one.

Response 2:

Please see the enclosed document.

Point 3:

The diagnostic analysis is not adequate.

Response 3:

Please see the enclosed document.

Point 4:

The substantiation of the problem needs to be revised.

Response 4:

The following explanation was added at the end of the introduction chapter.

“As it described above, forecasting in any form is also applied to the textile industry for the purpose of economic use of resources. This fact, that the headquarters of the Czech and Slovak e-shop company needed to implement a certain planning system, inspired the authors to apply forecasting methods to determine the approximate needs of the selected items of the assortment within the annual time horizon. This should contribute to savings from the side of storage (e.g. unnecessary overstocks or deficiencies, which can ultimately result in customer losses). Furthermore, from the side of the transport of goods there is also a space of reducing costs, such as reducing of returns, i.e. excess goods or urgent shipments. In the global world of the textile industry it is difficult to enforce environmental aspects and requirements to reduce the use of resources, but as practice has shown, some companies still work without conceptual planning.”

Point 5:

Connect discussions, research gaps and future scope.

Response 5:

The following explanation was added at the end of the conclusion.

“The period of COVID-19 is very specific and we assume that it will not indicate trend prospects for other years as well. Due to the restrictions that limited the movement of residents and the fact that many shops were closed, it was expected that the online store had a rush of orders. The company confirmed that it had to refuse many orders due to a shortage of goods because it was unable to respond to such demand. The problem was also on the part of the suppliers, because they were also unable to respond flexibly to the increased interest, also due to restrictions outside the territory of Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Anyway, we will try to analyze this period and evaluate possible forecasts from this period.”

English proofreading was done again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some suggestions that I think may be useful in improving the study are given below.

There is no need to write "The authors" for each author in the literature review. For example, it can be written as " Stone [12], has focused on comparing the negative impacts…"

The studies in the literature are chaotic. There is no unity and there are disconnections. Focus on the literature directly related to the study.

The material and method should be rewritten: The method is not explained sufficiently, explain the mathematical models of the method you used. If you used software, which software did you use?

Line 160-170: A paragraph that could be included in the introduction.

Line 174-180: This is the importance of the work. It should not be included in the material and method section. “These methods can be used to forecast demand for specific textile products, such as cotton shirts or woolen sweaters, taking into account seasonal patterns and trends in consumer behavior. This information can then be used to adjust production and inventory levels, reducing the risk of overstocking or stock shortages. Additionally, the methods can be used to forecast raw material demand, allowing textile companies to plan and manage their supply chain more effectively.”

Line 263: Change “forecsts” to “forecast”.

Line 259: Organize Table-1 in a more understandable way. It looks very complicated.

Line 306: In the literature, forecasts with MAPE values of 10-20% are generally considered as good forecasts. Some forecasts had high MAPE values. It would be good to write an explanation about the reasons for this.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 3)

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

(x) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

There is no need to write "The authors" for each author in the literature review. For example, it can be written as " Stone [12], has focused on comparing the negative impacts…"

Response 1:

It was updated in the manuscript.

Point 2:

The studies in the literature are chaotic. There is no unity and there are disconnections. Focus on the literature directly related to the study.

Response 2:

It may be the feeling at the first sight. The first part of the literature deals with the waste and the second part is devoted to use the forecasting techniques in the clothing industry. We tried to mention the most important.

Point 3:

The material and method should be rewritten: The method is not explained sufficiently, explain the mathematical models of the method you used. If you used software, which software did you use?

Response 3:

No software was used for this proposal, besides MS Excel. The methodology Holt-Winters (both approaches) and Seasonal indices are generally known, they are described in many books and articles, that is why we did not describe these methods in details. We just used MS Excel to do the calculation itself, to get results (diagrams included). But here was added the explanation of accuracy improvement in the article:

Please see the enclosed document what was added to the manuscript.

Point 4:

Line 160-170: A paragraph that could be included in the introduction.

Response 4:

I agree, it was moved at the end of the introduction.

Point5:

Response 5:

This I would keep in this chapter, there is the methods explanation and also added text mentioned above. I really do not have any idea where it should be placed better.

Point 6:

Line 263: Change “forecsts” to “forecast”.

Response 6:

It was changed.

Point 7:

Line 259: Organize Table-1 in a more understandable way. It looks very complicated.

Response 7:

I have tried to rewrite it. Please see the enclosed document how it was done.

Point 8:

Response 8:

Yes, a good note. The explanation was added to discussion.

"It is stated in some literatures that a MAPE of a forecast between 10-20% means a good forecast. Even if the MAPE is larger in some cases for the proposed forecast, this does not necessarily mean that the forecast is not applicable. It still means a normal state up to 50% [40]. Of course, there is still a space for increasing accuracy, which the authors will continue to do."

English proofreading was done again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The selection of the individual examined items is not sufficiently justified, only in the case of Coats_1, the selection is justified by the fact that it was the best-selling item in the given period. Other justifications, such as the fact that it is a brand particularly popular with celebrities, or that it is one of the most successful British fashion brands for women, are not sufficient. There is no declaration of sample selection, e.g. based on sales statistics, or research among customers. The criterion should be uniform for all products. if necessary, it should be a selection based on a multi-criteria analysis.

Since these are analyzes using the Holt-Winters method and Seasonal indices, it is not possible to work with different time intervals that capture the seasonality of sales in themselves.

The work lacks basic scientific attributes, setting goals, research questions, establishing hypotheses and their verification, or refutation.

The stated goal (see conclusion): "The aim ... was to find products that will be substituted by products with similar properties in the following periods (redesigned products, products with a small change of cut, etc.)" is at the level of student theses, not research papers. I lack scientific benefits, benefits for the academic community, and generalization of conclusions. I recommend expanding the conclusions in the sense of the text given in the annotation.

The described methods are not sufficiently clarified, it is not clear on what principle seasonality is finally confirmed. There is no indication of basic formulas and individual analyzed quantities and parameters.

In the introduction, the authors state the need for similar research, for example, the authors state the number of employees in the clothing industry, the number of companies, ecological impacts or logistical problems, which they do not subsequently analyze or evaluate and are therefore irrelevant for the research.

The work with the literature is too general, for example, sources [32-36] refer to the text "The objects of the forecast were chosen in the form of a group of products that have a common meaning, approximate appearance, functionality and thus can be classified into a common category. Therefore, specific items were not selected because the behavior of selling of particular items is very changeable or volatile". However, it is not clear how "System of distribution logistics of enterprise" or "Simulation as logistic support to handling in the warehouse: case study", or "Selection of optimal investment variant based on Monte Carlo simulations" are related to the issue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

In the submitted version of the paper, you can easily see both what was deleted and what is the new as we have used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word suggested by the editors. The details on changes associated with the main remarks are provided below.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 4)

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(	(x)
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	( )	(x)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Response 1:

It is true that the selection of items for which the forecast will be determined is not easy. The initial selection, as presented in the article, is according to the volume of sales i.e. "best-selling" items and the selection was done by the head of e-shop. So, it can be concluded that it is an expert approach. Selected items (such as product 1, 2 or 10) refer to only one brand. The brand is not listed, as we did not consider it necessary to list it at this stage, also for other promotional reasons.

The explanation added to the text (Chapter 2):

The selection was done according to the volume of sales i.e. "best-selling" items and the selection was done by the head of e-shop. Selected items (such as product 1, 2 or 10) refer to only one brand. The brand is not listed, as we did not consider it necessary to list it at this stage, also for other promotional reasons.

Point 2:

Since these are analyzes using the Holt-Winters method and Seasonal indices, it is not possible to work with different time intervals that capture the seasonality of sales in themselves.

Response 2:

The time intervals are the same for each particular item. It was also rewritten Table 1 to be more understandable.

Please see the enclosed document how it was done.

Point 3:

The work lacks basic scientific attributes, setting goals, research questions, establishing hypotheses and their verification, or refutation.

Response 3:

The main goal of the article is to show the way that even a company that operates an e-shop with textile goods, i.e. clothes, can contribute to the reduction of unsalable stocks by means of improved planning with quantitative forecasts. The absence of a more detailed explanation of the methodology, verification and evaluation was supplemented in the article.

Point 4:

Response 4:

The use of methods such as the Holt-Winters method and the Seasonal Index method is not unusual. The absence of a scientific contribution was supplemented by the principle of combining the results of the methods in the methodological part of the article. In the conclusions, it was added that this principle works and brings an improvement in forecasting accuracy by an average of 2.5%.

Added to conclusion:

It is also necessary to emphasize the principle of the combined forecast, which works on the principle of merging the results of several methods into one result using a weighted average with variable weights calculated according to the accuracy of individual methods in the past period. It showed, that the results are on average 2.5% more accurate than in the case of fixed determination of weights (e.g. w_i = 1/3).

Point 5:

Response 5:

As it was mentioned above, the methodology Holt-Winters (both approaches) and Seasonal indices are generally known, they are described in many books and articles and that is why we did not describe these methods in details. But, it is true, there is missing information regarding the Holt-Winter’s smoothing parameters (α, β, γ). These parameters were set according the minimum RMSE.

The explanation added to the text (Chapter 2):

The Holt-Winter’s smoothing parameters (α, β, γ) were set according the minimum RMSE.

Point 6:

Response 6:

This information is only informative for a reader in the introduction. The idea is to outline the size or complexity of the clothing industry, and the problems that this industry includes.

Point 7:

Response 7:

These were excluded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, review my comments and resubmit the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 5)

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

(x) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Response 1:

All figures and tables are authors’ own elaboration. Errors found in the tables have been corrected according to template standards.

Point 2:

All the references included in the last part are not following the rules defined in the Style Guide for MDPI Journals, please follow the main rule: “Title of the article. Journal Abbreviation Year, Volume”.

Response 2:

All the references were checked and many of them were corrected.

Point 3:

Line 25: Ellen MacArthur Foundation is mentioned in the article without any specific academical reference. Please, include it.

Response 3:

It was a part of the reference 1. But the document itself, from which it was citied there, was added to the list of references.

Point 4:

Line 43: Please review and correct the wrong text indent.

Response 4:

Corrected.

Point 5:

Line 69 and 72: Please review the wording. I think is better the following: “Chaka [10] has pointed out in his publication….”

Response 5:

Ok, it sounds better. Also corrected.

Point 6:

Line 77: Stone is singular, not plural “The authors”. Please, comments 5 and 6 must be applied to all the manuscript.

Response 6:

There should be Stone et al. It was corrected too.

Point 7:

Line 87: the name of the bacteria should be in italic font.

Response 7:

Done.

Point 8:

Line 88: Is the “Kombucha” name protected or registered brand? If yes, please, add “®”. Please, apply this concept to all the manuscript.

Response 8:

Good observation. I have checked it and it seems that it is registered. I add mark “®”.

Point 9:

Lines 92 to 98: I think the four energy conservation scenarios are very important, and it is not sufficiently justified and explained, nor its application in the article.

Response 9:

I agree with this importance. But this is not the intention of this article. Rather, I think that these scenarios are important in production, maybe in transport. I think that in the conditions of the e-shop, it would be possible to use only the third scenario.

Point 10:

Line 99: Again, same comments concerning the way to make an academic reference: it is not needed to include all the surnames of authors.

Response 10:

Yes, but there are three different publication teams and their works. Ok, I have kept the first and deleted others.

Point 11:

Line 109: The authors of the article cannot assume that all readers are adequately familiar with the different surfaces. Please explain more in detail or remove references to them.

Response 11:

I have kept “fleece”. I think it is known.

Point 12:

Line 165: This article is based on the Holt-Winters method, and the creators of the method themselves are not cited in the bibliography. This is not acceptable.

Response 12:

I agree. Citations has been added.

Point 13:

- Section 3: I cannot find an explanation about the criteria used in the designing of the groups of products. Type of product? Colour? Season? Popularity? Please, include a summary of those criteria used and applied in the definition of these groups of products. The explanation in section 3.1 is not enough.

Response 13:

The explanation added to the text (Chapter 2):

“The selection was done according to the volume of sales i.e. "best-selling" items and the selection was done by the head of e-shop. Selected items (such as product 1, 2 or 10) refer to only one brand. The brand is not listed, as we did not consider it necessary to list it at this stage, also for other promotional reasons.”

Point 14:

Figure 1: These diagrams include a forecast for each product. How were these forecasts obtained? using holt-winter? Where in the manuscript is this explained?

Section 3.2 is about forecasting errors. The Holt-Winters seasonal method comprises the

forecast equation and three smoothing equations: one for the level, one for the trend, and one for the seasonal component with corresponding smoothing parameters. Have you used this?

Response 14:

The forecast in the diagrams in Figure 1 is overall (combined). It is the result of a weighted average with variable weights. The explanation of this calculation was added to the methodology. We have also added explanations about it above the figure 1.

“There is displayed the total (combined) forecast separately for region SK and SK+CZ.”

Yes, the Holt-Winters seasonal method comprises three smoothing equations: one for the level, one for the trend, and one for the seasonal component and two approaches (multiplication). And the forecast is calculated based on it. Seasonal indices are generally known, they are described in many books and articles that is why we did not describe these methods in details. We just used MS Excel to do the calculation of particular forecasts then combined forecast to get total results (diagrams included). There was missing information regarding the Holt-Winter’s smoothing parameters (α, β, γ). These parameters were set according the minimum RMSE.

The explanation added to the text (Chapter 2):

“The Holt-Winter’s smoothing parameters (α, β, γ) were set according the minimum RMSE.”

English proofreading was done again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is improved and now is much better. It is recommended that the title of the figure 1 is at the same page as the respective figure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is improved and now is much better. It is recommended that the title of the figure 1 is at the same page as the respective figure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 1) round 2

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

(x) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

The paper is improved and now is much better. It is recommended that the title of the figure 1 is at the same page as the respective figure.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your comment. Yes, we have overlooked this and repaired it. Also we have expected that there will be a final editing just before publishing. Maybe there will be still some addition regarding other comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the revisions I have specified have been satisfactorily met. I congratulate the authors on this. The only problem is that the estimates in the article are from previous years. Maybe future forecasts can be added with an easy method such as ARIMA Box Jenkins. This would make the study more valuable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 3) round 2

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report

( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Response 1:

Yes, we agree. We have done also calculation with ARIMA (even better said SARIMA) model using data we have got, but the results were a little bit confusing. Some results of SK market were fine, better MAPE and RMSE, but, on other hand, the results from SK+CZ market were unusable, there were very big dicrepancies with the same model. That is why, we have decided not to publish this calculation.

Of course, if we have more data, the usage of ARIMA model will be more relevant.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporated some of the reviewer's comments, but the essential comments were not accepted.

The work still lacks the requisites of a research publication, such as hypotheses and research questions, and the research is not sufficiently justified and documented.

Also, the justification of the selected sample was not sufficiently clarified, the justification that "the selection was done by the head of e-shop" is insufficient. There is still a lack of determination of a uniform product selection criterion based on mathematical statistical methods, for example, selection based on multi-criteria analysis. The current form of selection of the analyzed sample cannot be accepted.

its application and comparison with ARIMA model, or Hart M.; Rasner, J.; Lukoszová, X. Demand Forecasting Significance for Contemporary Process Management of Logistics Systems).

Overall, it can be concluded that even after editing, the article is not of sufficient quality and it is necessary to incorporate the original comments more comprehensively. At the same time, I would recommend segmenting the post more in terms of content, which would benefit the professional level of the post. In its current form, it is still rather an evaluation of inconsistent data, based on an insufficiently justified data sample. Even though the visualization part made with graphs looks interesting, I still can't recommend the post for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 4) round 2

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	( )	(x)
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	( )	(x)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

The work still lacks the requisites of a research publication, such as hypotheses and research questions, and the research is not sufficiently justified and documented.

Response 1:

Yes, for that reason the abstract was redone and additional text was added into the end of introduction part.

Implementing forecasting into the planning system of an e-shop company that sells clothing, shoes and accessories seemed a good idea for the above reason. The goal of this research was to design a forecasting system based on classical methods (with an emphasis on seasonality) and its verification in practice. In order to increase the objectivity of the results, a combined model was used to integrate the results of three forecasting methods. The following chapters describe the principle of the model and the verification of the results directly with reality or with results from a model based on a neural network.

Point 2:

Response 2:

The information about this was clarified in the text (chapter 2) to the following:

The selection of the products was done by the brainstorming of the sale manager, two sellers working in the e-shop and one main supplier. The main criterion was the volume of sales i.e. "best-selling" items which also means a relatively high turnover. Another secondary criterion was substitutability, i.e. whether the particular product has a replacement in the form of a new product with similar properties to the previous one.

Point 3:

Even though the authors have modified the list of literature, the list still contains too general literature not related to the topic (for example, already mentioned in the previous review Kačmáry, P.; Rosová, A.; Straka, M.; Malinžáková, M.; Puskáš, E. Introduction to the combined model of forecasting and its application and comparison with ARIMA model, or Hart M.; Rasner, J.; Lukoszová, X. Demand Forecasting Significance for Contemporary Process Management of Logistics Systems).

Response 3:

The reference [35] “Kačmáry, P.; Rosová, A.; Straka, M.; Malinžáková, M.; Puskáš, E. Introduction to the combined model of forecasting and its application and comparison with ARIMA model.” was moved to another part of the text, where the combined model was described. We consider that it is now better and it has a better relation to the topic. And regarding the other article “Hart M.; Rasner, J.; Lukoszová, X. Demand Forecasting Significance for Contemporary Process Management of Logistics Systems” – there the chapter 2.1 and figure 3 deals with demand characters which is connected to volatility of the sale mentioned in the submitted article.

Response 4:

The authors have done their best to incorporate the reviewer's valuable comments. Overall, we don't understand the idea of “segmenting the post more in terms of content”, but we think the article is much better prepared after all the comments have been incorporated.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have checked that the most of my comments and suggestion made in my first review have been taken into account by the authors, and this is the reason I recommend to Accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your interest in reading our contribution. Many thanks for your valuable advice and comments.

Accepting all your suggestions we have provided the major revision of the paper. Some text-parts of the paper had been improved in order to make them more clear.

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments (Reviewer 5) round 2

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

Please, find below some comments and suggestion to be considered by the authors:

The authors should clearly indicate if tables, diagrams and figures are “source own elaboration” or not. Please review all figures and tables. And also, the tables are not following the template of the Journal. Please review the guideline information for authors. → NO OK, If all figures and tables are authors’ own elaboration, this must be mentioned below all tables or with a specific note at the end of the article.

Response 1:

Since all figures and tables are authors’ own elaboration, we considered it more advantageous to add this mention at the end of the document, in the "Author Contributions" section.

This text was added:

All figures and tables are authors’ own elaboration. Figure 1 and 2 were created in MS Excel^® and Figure 3 was generated in MATLAB^®.

All tables were checked again. We have found problem with thickness of the lines in Table 4. And all text in cells in tables in the template were centered to middle, our tables were updated into this format. We have not noticed any other differences.

Point2:

We were just worried about changing the identification of a journal. What was found, it was has been changed like followed:

Cleaner Environmental System -> Clean. Environ. Syst.

Autex Research Journal - > Autex Res. J.

Journal of Natural Fibers -> J. of Nat. Fibers

Science of The Total Environment -> Sci. of the Tot. Environ.

Waste Management & Research -> Waste Manag. & Res.

Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon -> Tekstil ve Konfeks.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors accepted and implemented most of the reviewer's comments and improved the quality of the article.

In case of further research, I would recommend a more sophisticated and scientifically based sample selection to the authors.

Article Menu

Possibilities of Sale Forecasting Textile Products with a Short Life Cycle

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI