A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Reverse Logistics Service Quality for Reverse Logistics Service Providers: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper makes a systematic literature review in order to explore the impact of sustainable business practices and reverse logistics operations on their performance and customer satisfaction.
This is a subject that has been approached by an interesting perspective. However, the structure of the text is somehow complicated and the main conclusions of this research not clearly stated.
Section 2.2 refers to the concept of reverse logistics. I think it should be placed earlier in the text (at least one part of this section), e.g., in the introduction section, since it gives the definition of the reverse logistics.
Figure 4 is not very helpful, as with the 3d format, numbers in the y-axis are not clear (can not read the number of books for example) and x-axis also is not readable (e.g., there is Book… and Book).
Literatures in Table 2 should be sorted differently, by applying let’s say a criterion of ordering, e.g., sorting by the number of citations. So, Nikolaou et.al. will be the first in order. Or by the year of publication. Why do titles of the columns appear 3 times (and by a different text)? E.g., in the first row you write “citation”, “Publisher”, “IF” and the next time you write “Cited by”, “Published by”, “Impact Factor”. Please delete the unnecessary titles. Moreover, in line 287, you write “…The following table displays the techniques used for selected studies, …” but in Table 2 there are no techniques being displayed. Please correct. Furthermore, papers are listed here by the authors names, so e.g., “Mavi, God [47]”, should be “Mavi et. al. [47]”, etc.
Section 4.2 (please see line 299 and correct accordingly). Why do we need to know the countries where the studies were conducted? The same is also valid for the categorization by the purpose. What does the reader gain from these sections (4.1 to 4.3)?
In section 5.1, could the triple bottom line pillar approach be linked with Figure 1? Why have you made bold the second pillar and not the first and the third one?
In section 6.1 line 443, “The researcher was therefore motivated to focus on these kinds of investigations, especially in Africa”. I cannot find if you have previously referred that you will focus your research on Africa. What is the purpose of this?
In general, it is not clear what the reader can gain from this research. In the introduction section and also in the Materials and Methods (section 3) you have stated the research questions, but nevertheless, the results/conclusions are not clear enough and needs improvement.
Below please find some minor points that should be corrected:
Line 48, correct “aim” to “aims”.
Line 267. Add a full stop at the end of the sentence.
Line 277, please write the full term of TLS.
Line 346, please correct “… sustainable service quality (SSQ). the adoption of…”
Line 390, please correct “…Another studies…” to “Other studies…”
Line 406, please correct “…retention According …” to “…retention according …”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Reverse Logistics Service Quality for Reverse Logistics Service Providers. There are numerous problems:
· Title should include SLR, Review or something else
· Key words are missing?!
· Systematic literature review must be based on very strong SLR methodology. Existing methodology is very trivial.
· The paper must be more critical, less explanatory.
· Figure 4 is very trivial. It is not necessary.
· Why is literature review selection restricted to ten years 2011-2022. What happens before?
· Subsections in Conclusion are not common in this type of paper (scientific paper)
· The separate section Practical and theoretical implications (or Discussion) is missing. The existing section Discussion is very modest. This confirms the lack of scientific and practical contribution.
· The scientific and practical contributions must be more emphasized.
Suggested References
Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D., (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 671-689.
Kilibarda, M., Andrejić, M., & Popović, V. (2020). Research in logistics service quality: a systematic literature review. Transport, 35 (2), 224-235.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have gone through the article "A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Reverse Logistics 2 Service Quality for Reverse Logistics Service Providers". This is an interesting topic that is closely related to the scope of Sustainability. However, the manuscript should be improved in the following areas.
(1) Please includes the basic design and methodology of the study in the summary.
(2) Please improve the introduction to be clearly stated research problems and targets first. When reading the abstract and introduction, the reviewer is impressed with the detailed research problem that the authors have put forth. However, the significance of study still needs to be further enhanced to make your case even stronger.
(3) The authors must still emphasize the originality of the study.
(4) The Introduction section is necessary for you to clarify the "contribution" of your study.
(5) Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, hardly allows the reader to appreciate the value of their results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper should be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
no comments
