Designing the Distribution Network of Essential Items in the Critical Conditions of Earthquakes and COVID-19 Simultaneously
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research has developed a mathematical planning model under uncertainty for earthquake relief and response during COVID-19. It uses the LP-metric and Goal Programming (G.P.) approach to resolve the planning model. This research is interesting and meaningful, however, there are some concerns on for this paper.
1. Why does this research consider simultaneously the scenario of earthquake relief and response during COVID-19? Since the beginning of 2023, almost all countries have normalized the management of COVID-19, and what important factors need to be considered when earthquakes occur.
2. The mathematical programming model is complex, and the author should give the solution method in detail.
3. “mathematical planning model” should be “mathematical programming model”ï¼›
4. All formulas should have punctuation marks after them;
5. There are quite a few similar papers from the perspective of problem modeling and optimization algorithms alone. It is suggested that the author can provide some insights or suggestions from a management perspective to help the government quickly make appropriate disaster relief arrangements in similar scenarios.
Author Response
see attached file for detailed responses
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a current and important topic. It develops a model that can be used in the various catastrophes that occur around the world. It is necessary to take into account the specificities of each catastrophe.
Summary: Address the methodology used to develop the research. Explore the main results further. Make the objective of the study clearer.
Introduction: I suggest inserting the research question and the objective of the study. The objective is not clearly presented. I don't recommend using a figure in the introduction. There was a final paragraph missing presenting the gap in your research.
Literature review:
2.1. Related work. Just a quote. Use other authors to complement.
Analysis of results: I missed triangulation with other studies. Deepen the comments on the graphs/figures. The case study analysis could be further explored.
Conclusion and future suggestions. Return to the objective of the study. The results found can be further explored.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSmall review in English
Author Response
see attached file for detailed responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of English language used is high. Authors are, however, encouraged to read through the manuscript for minor corrections.
Author Response
see attached file for detailed responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper develops a mathematical programming model to design the distribution network in the critical conditions of earthquakes and COVID-19 simultaneously. The topic is of great importance and interesting. I have the following concerns:
1) Line 242 states that “Considering distance restriction between people at demand point.” Thus, in case study, the sensitivity analysis regarding ???? (maximum allowable distance between people in demand point ?) and ?????? (distance between people in damaged point) should be provided.
2) For the CPU time of the proposed solution methods, the computer configuration and the programming language or software should be introduced. In addition, whether the proposed model can be solved by some well-known optimization software, e.g., CPLEX? If YES, the comparisons between the proposed solution methods and optimization software could be conducted for the model.
Author Response
see attached file for detailed responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presents improvements compared to the previous version. Most of the notes made previously were included.
Analysis of Results: I still missed comparing your results in relation to previous studies related to this topic.
The work still presents deficiencies in the discussion of results.
Section 6. Conclusion and future suggestions, had its title changed to: 7. Managerial Insights.
It got interesting. However, the Conclusion and future suggestions are missing.
Author Response
please see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
