Digital Technique-Enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article titled "Digital Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement”. The paper is well-structured, presents accurate information, and will be of interest to the scientific community. However, the following suggestions can be made to improve the manuscript:
1) Please, check the writing style. Some sentences are very long. This complicates text understanding. Also, pay attention to grammar and spelling. Please, deleted chine’s symbols in the text beginning from the abstract to conclusion;
2 Please add an objective at the end of the Introduction section;
3) In my opinion, the list of references presented should be broader since this is a review article.;
4) Please add discussion section
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageShould be improved
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your assistance and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Digital Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement”. We have revised the manuscript according to the detailed comments of reviewers to improve the quality of this manuscript. To facilitate further review by reviewers and editors, the specific revisions are marked in a different blue color (0/0/225) in the revised manuscript (R1 version). We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Sustainability.
Much obliged for your help on our paper processing. I wish you all the very best.
Sincerely yours
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study highlights the increasing significance of the digital economy, shedding light on its extensive influence and the evolving structure of the digital industry.
Results show that the digital technology has been widely applied in container logsitics supply chain management practices, contributing to resilience and sustainability improvement by intelligent operations.
The article is interesting, it introduces an idea that is promising and the its’ content is strong practically.
The problem described in the article is relevant, the topic is actual and of interest.
Summing up, I would like to point out that I rate the substantive level of the article very highly, the study was written in accordance with the rules of writing scientific articles.
But, I still have the following comments so that authors could improve the paper in the revised version.
The abstract is not focused and does not fully and clearly expresses the methodology.
Referencing could be more accurate and unified – sometimes whole name is written, sometimes only the surname. And may be includes authors from Europe. Please, discuss these papers:
1. Aslanzade, R. (2021). Methodological approaches to assessing the social responsibility level in the field of supply chain management. Access to science, business, innovation in digital economy, ACCESS Press, 2(2): 162-174. https://doi.org/10.46656/access.2021.2.2(4)
2. Digital Ecosystem: Nature, Types and Opportunities for Value Creation. In: Rodionov, D., Kudryavtseva, T., Skhvediani, A., Berawi, M.A. (eds) Innovations in Digital Economy. SPBPU IDE 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1619. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14985-6_5
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your assistance and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Digital Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement”. We have revised the manuscript according to the detailed comments of reviewers to improve the quality of this manuscript. To facilitate further review by reviewers and editors, the specific revisions are marked in a different blue color (0/0/225) in the revised manuscript (R1 version). We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Sustainability.
Much obliged for your help on our paper processing. I wish you all the very best.
Sincerely yours
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Digital Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement” describes the results of a study on different aspects of current development in container logistics. The authors demonstrate in detail modern digital technologies used in monitoring and GPS positioning of containers, anti-theft functions, transit terminals, rapid connections between different types transportation systems, damage evaluation, and so on. The paper convincingly demonstrates the high usefulness and potential of digital techniques in each stage of the functioning of container processing and transportation. For the purpose, the paper used different types of bibliometric analysis using citation analysis, co-word occurrence analysis, etc. The sample was collected in Web of Science database for 2003-2022 years, the visualization of the results was completed in VOSviewer software. The paper can be interesting for Sustainability readers as it highlights a number of benefits of using modern digital technologies for a green economy and sustainable development of the analyzed sector.
General comments
1. The theoretical background section is too extended. I recommend the authors reduce it, especially 2.3 section with a lot of common facts about digital technologies. Only those relevant to containers seems to be appropriate. The same is true for the Research Design section: general knowledge on bibliometrics should be reduced or removed; the applied approaches should be listed without excessive details (e.g., co-word or network analysis). Furthermore, some graphics and text fragments just repeat the same information (e.g., fig. 1 and the text above it; figs. 4 and 5).
2. The authors mentioned two types of analysis used in the study, i.e., bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Systematic review implies careful reading of all papers from the sample (see PRISMA protocols at http://prisma-statement.org/). However, the sample of 2897 papers, as I understand, was used only for bibliometric purposes. Although the authors thoroughly describe the current state of containers in 4.3 sections which is obviously based not only on bibliometric data, it is unclear what sample was used for this review. Thus, the sample for a systematic review should also be indicated, or the mention of systematic review should be removed. Please, consider to indicate bibliometrics as the main used approach in the title of the paper.
3. The authors used Web of Science database for their analysis, which counts different regions of the United Kingdom and China as separate parts. Please, clarify in the Methodology section how the UK and China was processed. E.g., Table 2 mentions England, but in the text the authors write about UK which is absent in Web of Science (it indicates England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland). The same is relevant to China.
Minor comments
A number of Grammar errors should be addressed in the paper. Some of them are listed below.
As the phrase “container logistics supply chain” is used many times in the text, it seems that some abbreviation (e.g., CLSC) can be used instead to simplify the reading.
Indicate countries when mentioning different company names (e.g., Tencent Technology in the lint 591, etc.).
1. Line 19: “logistics” – logistics
2. Line 46: “TEU” – please, explain this abbreviation.
3. Line 63: “target; By 2040…” – change ; with .
4. Line 71: “4.0 ear” – era
5. Line 105: “world; Since 2007…” – change ; with .
6. Line 108: “[16]; In 2020…” – change ; with .
7. Line 158: “contain supply” – container
8. Line 197: “co construction” – what is it “co”
9. Line 285: “4402 authoritative and high-quality academic journals worldwide are collected” – as it is seen in the line 372, the authors meant papers, but not journals.
10. Line 406: put dot point at the end of the sentence.
11. Line 412: “Organization” - Organizations
12. Line 412, table 1: please, provide the country names for each listed organization.
13. Line 428: Figure 4 – highlight with bold. Country names of two words should be capitalized (e.g., United States instead of United states).
14. Line 436: Figure 5 – highlight with bold.
15. Line 476: Figure 6 – highlight with bold.
16. Line 477: “better categorized” – categorize
17. Lines 551-555: what does the abbreviation RMG stand for? Is it really necessary in the text?
18. Line 564: “manually or manually” – remove duplication.
19. Line 606: “99%; The box” – change ; with .
20. Line 631: “the dock; For new” – change ; with .
21. Lines 690-692: are the used acronyms necessary? They are not used anywhere in the text.
22. Line 710: “functions are has been addressed” – check grammar
23. Line 715: “promot” – promote
24. Line 756: “inforation" – information
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A number of Grammar errors should be addressed in the paper. Some of them are listed in Special comments.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your assistance and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Digital Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement”. We have revised the manuscript according to the detailed comments of reviewers to improve the quality of this manuscript. To facilitate further review by reviewers and editors, the specific revisions are marked in a different blue color (0/0/225) in the revised manuscript (R1 version). We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Sustainability.
Much obliged for your help on our paper processing. I wish you all the very best.
Sincerely yours
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the revised version of the manuscript “Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement: a Bibliometric Study” the authors thoroughly addressed all comments from my review. Furthermore, the References section was significantly enhanced, additional sections devoted to the implications of the results were included. Methodological issues have been overcome. I have read through the paper one more time. Several shortcomings should be eliminated before accepting the paper.
Minor comments
1. Unify the writing of VOSviewer throughout the text. Now three variants are used inconsistently.
2. line 277: “be regarded as the initial selection word for literature retrieval” – words (plural)
3. line 358: “publications in WOS database” – please, expand this acronym on its first mention.
4. line 361: “As the Fig 1 illustrates” – insert dot point after Fig.
5. line 470: “High cited papers” – highly
6. line 485: “illustrated in Fig. 7 to Fig. 12” – the correct range is Fig. 7 to Fig. 11 (not 12).
7. line 523: “data are shown in Figure 8” – it seems that Fig. 12 is meant.
8. line 628: “good compatibility The characteristic” – separate two sentences with dot point.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language seems clear and readable.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your assistance and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Digital Technique-enabled Container Logistics Supply Chain Sustainability Achievement: a Bibliometric Study”. We have revised the manuscript according to the detailed comments of reviewers to improve the quality of this manuscript and the specific revisions are presented in the cover letter-Response to Reviewer #3. In addition, in order to improve the quality of the English, we invited a native English speaker to check and revise the grammar, sentences and expressions of our manuscript. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Sustainability.
Much obliged for your help on our paper processing. I wish you all the very best.
Warm Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
