Autonomous Delivery Solutions for Last-Mile Logistics Operations: A Literature Review and Research Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the paper is in line with the aims and scope of the Journal, although this connection is not clearly presented. The structure of the paper is acceptable. However, the writing should be significantly improved. The authors should revise their paper according to the following comments.

1.     The abstract is not good. The authors did not present the study background adequately. It must be clear from the background what are the main motives for the study, e.g. what are the main problems of city logistics/last mile deliveries, how can they be solved, why is convenient to use autonomous vehicles, etc. Also, the methodology of the study is not explained, nor are the main results, conclusions, and contributions of the paper.

2.     The paper has to provide a clear connection between the study topic the sustainability. The authors should discuss the significance of this topic for achieving the goals of any of the three main sustainability pillars (environmental, economic, and social).

3.     The authors did not provide limitations of the study. This should be discussed in section 5. In addition, the authors should highlight the theoretical and practical (managerial) implications of the study. It is not enough to simply state that the research agenda provides practical implications. It has to be explained which kind of implications. And not only practical but also theoretical. It has to be clear who and for what can use the results of this study.

4.     The authors should highlight and discuss what kind of new insights are provided in their study in comparison to other literature review studies in the literature. This should be additionally discussed in section 5.

5.     I think it would be much better if the research agenda would be moved from the conclusion to the discussion section. The authors should leave in the Conclusion only the descriptions of the motives for the study, obtained results, main conclusions, and condensed review of future research directions.

6.     English writing needs thorough revision. There are major syntax errors (e.g. first sentence of the Introduction, lines 27-28). There are also other spelling and grammar errors.

7.     There are certain technical issues:

a)     There are two sub-sections numbered 3.2.

b)    References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (e.g. not all journal names are abbreviated).

c)     Some references are incomplete (e.g. references [11], [21], [27], etc.). One or more major elements are missing, such as publisher, web address, authors, date of accessing the address, etc. Check all references.

d)    Different fonts are used in certain parts of the paper (e.g. for paragraphs between lines 103-106).

e)     Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. For example, the abbreviation „AV“ is not defined in figure 1. Check the rest of the paper.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a good attempt to review the operation of last mile logistic transport using a autonomous platform. While there are a lot of information being presented in the paper, I would like to suggest/comment the below points:

1. What is the objective of the paper. Clearly outline what is being solved or the benefits that this paper is going to bring in. 

2. I see most of the information is compiled from various literature. What is the contribution of the paper on top of what is already available in literature?

3. If this is solely a review of existing technology then please make the paper more concise and direct. There is also a need to comment on what the author's feel and recommend that would augment the available technology.

4. In its current form the review would not draw enough attention to readers and miss on important outcome of the paper. 

5. How do you validate and claim the content of the table 2? I think a more detailed rationale is needed.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting and meaningful topic. It can be considered with some changes, as follows:

1.There are too many key words, usually the number should be no more than five.

2. The author should show more information about how to determine the timeline of literatures. At present, year 2005 is the start time.

3. In last mile delivery, some Chinese companies have done a lot of work, like JD Logistics, SF Express. They are also a part of existing testing or application examples on AGV, UAV, and so on. So, this condition should be included.

4. If the literatures on Asian or Chinese market are added, the section ‘5 Conclusion and Future Research Agenda’ should be revised. I think the language is not the major obstacle, because there are many references about Asian region are written in English.  

5. Line 313, the first word requires caps for the first letter.

6. The following papers may be helpful to improve this paper:

Technology Development and Applying Scenary of UAV: A Patentometric Survey

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE RETURN PROCESS : THE CASE OF JD LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE

A hybrid metaheuristic algorithm for the multi-objective location-routing problem in the early post-disaster stage

Logistics and distribution innovation in China

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues from the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore I suggest the acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you addressing my suggestions and taking effort to restructure the manuscript. I do not have any further comments.