Green Closed-Loop Supply Chain Networks’ Response to Various Carbon Policies during COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Over all research work is good.
Few revisions are needed as follows
1) Brief future scope
2) Tabular form of literature survey
3) Managerial Insights
Author Response
“Response document to Reviewer’s Comment”
Green closed-loop supply chain networks' response to various carbon policies during COVID-19
We appreciate the reviewers’ constructive comments regarding the above paper. Below we address each of the comments.
Dear Reviewer #1: Overall research work is good. A few revisions are needed as follows:
Comment 1. Brief future scope.
Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comments. We bring and focus on future research directions (Highlighted on page 33).
Comment 2. The tabular form of literature survey.
Response 2: Thank you. We consider the Literature Review in a tabular form. Table 1 shows the position of the present research about the previous research (Highlighted on page 11).
Comment 3. Managerial Insights.
Response 3: Thank you. We focus on managerial implications and insights. We emphasize the applicability of the model in a real-life engineering setting during COVID-19. The implications of this investigation can provide useful policies for disaster management, especially in COVID-19 conditions, and help the relevant managers (Highlighted on pages 31-32).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Figure 1 is not useful for academic paper.
2. Line 53 starts about the research problem but before this line has not discussed problems related to model design and low carbon logistics. Authors only discuss the protocol that nations followed for policies.
3. Section 2.1.1: not enough past studies covering carbon tax? and how carbon tax as a policy affect firm? These can be included.
4. Proofread is required as the current manuscript.
5. Section 2.2 Research gap and section 3 Problem description should be before literature review so that your reader knows what this study is about.
6. Analysis: very good analysis and well-prepared. Background of Iran, parameters references were available and detail. Good analysis overall.
7. Discussion and Conclusion: these sections were less discussed and should cover research objectives. Please improve this part as this is the most critical part.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2:
Comment 1. Figure 1 is not useful for an academic paper.
Response 1: Thank you very much. We removed Figure 1 based on your comment.
Comment 2. Line 53 starts with the research problem but before this line has not discussed problems related to model design and low carbon logistics. The authors only discuss the protocol that nations followed for policies.
Response 2: Thank you for your consideration. We revise this issue with your comment. (Highlighted on pages 3-4).
Comment 3: Section 2.1.1: not enough past studies covering carbon tax? and how carbon tax as a policy affect firm? These can be included.
Response 3: Thank you. We explain more in section 2.1.1. We focus on how carbon tax as a policy affect firm “2.1 Carbon Tax” (Highlighted on page 5).
Comment 4: Proofread is required as the current manuscript.
Response 4: Thank you. The intended corrections were performed in the current manuscript.
Comment5.Section 2.2 Research gap and section 3 Problem description should be before the literature review so that your reader knows what this study is about.
Response 5: Thank you. We change the situation of the research gap and problem description. According to your comment, they are placed before the literature review (Pages 3-4)
Comment 6. The analysis is very good analysis and well-prepared. Background of Iran, parameters references were available, and detail. Good analysis overall.
Response 6: Thank your kind comment. This makes us proud.
Comment 7. Discussion and Conclusion: these sections were less discussed and should cover research objectives. Please improve this part as this is the most critical part.
Response 7: Thanks for your attention. We improved this part because it is an important part of our paper (Highlighted on page 32).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The COVID-19 pandemic logis- 10 tics management and a green closed-loop supply chain design (GCLSCD) are optimized 11 in this paper based on carbon regulatory regulations. Three of the most popular normal 12 CO2 regulations are examined in this study. Costs and emissions are both optimized in 13 the proposed models. There is a balance between location selection, shipment options, 14 and fees and releases in supply chain (SC) activities. These trade-offs are represented by 15 the models. We highlight the impact of various policies on costs and the effectiveness of 16 release reductions based on the numerical experiment. Managers can forecast how regu- 17 latory actions will impact overall emissions in SC operations by examining the findings of 18 the models. The topic is interesting and the analysis is correct. There are some problems that need to be further improved by the author.
1)Add literature that is closely related to the article, for example,
Decisions and Coordination of Retailer-led Low-carbon Supply Chain under Altruistic Preference. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 293(1): 910-925
Manufacturer’s Decision-making Model under Carbon Emission Permits Repurchase Strategy and Capital Constraints, International Journal of Production Research, 10.1080/00207543.2021.1934909
2) Increase the management inspiration of the paper.
3) It is recommended to add real business cases to further verify the conclusions of the paper
It is recommended to accept after modification
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3:
The COVID-19 pandemic logistics management and a green closed-loop supply chain design (GCLSCD) are optimized in this paper based on carbon regulatory regulations. Three of the most popular normal CO2 regulations are examined in this study. Costs and emissions are both optimized in the proposed models. There is a balance between location selection, shipment options, and fees and releases in supply chain (SC) activities. These trade-offs are represented by the models. We highlight the impact of various policies on costs and the effectiveness of release reductions based on the numerical experiment. Managers can forecast how regulatory actions will impact overall emissions in SC operations by examining the findings of the models. The topic is interesting and the analysis is correct.
There are some problems that need to be further improved by the author.
Comment1.Add literature that is closely related to the article, for example:
- Decisions and Coordination of Retailer-led Low-carbon Supply Chain under Altruistic Preference. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 293(1): 910-925.
- Manufacturer’s Decision-making Model under Carbon Emission Permits Repurchase Strategy and Capital Constraints, International Journal of Production Research, 10.1080/00207543.2021.1934909.
Response 1: Thank you. With honor, we make added recent papers and, your suggestions papers in the literature review, References 13 and 48 (Highlighted on page 10).
Comment 2. Increase the management inspiration of the paper.
Response 2: Thanks a lot. Our goal is to provide managerial insights and implications. The model will be applied in a real-life engineering setting during COVID-19. Based on the results of this study, managers will be able to design and implement useful disaster management policies, especially in COVID-19 conditions. (Highlighted on page 31).
Comment 3. It is recommended to add real business cases to further verify the conclusions of the paper.
Response 3: Thank you. We added real business cases (Case Study) to verify the conclusions of the paper (Highlighted on page 26).
It is recommended to accept after modification
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have addressed the corrections and improved the manuscript.
