Assessment of Sustainable Reverse Logistic Provider Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS and MSGP Framework in Food Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
1. First word of the keywords need to be capitalized.
2. Table 2 needs reference.
3. Literature review needs to be discussed in a better way. Consider providing it in a sub-sections.
4. Delphi Method has not been explained sufficiently in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: First word of the keywords need to be capitalized.
Response 1: We have modified the keywords. (Please see the keywords in the revised manuscript)
Point 2: Table 2 needs reference.
Response 2: We have added the reference. (Please see the Table 3 in the revised manuscript)
Point3: Literature review needs to be discussed in a better way. Consider providing it in a sub-sections.
Response 3: We have modified literature review using Table 2. (Please see the Table 2 in the revised manuscript)
Point4: Delphi Method has not been explained sufficiently in the revised manuscript.
Response 4: We have added the Delphi method, please see the Appendix 1.
We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Overall comments
This study proposes an interesting approach to select reverse logistics provider in the food industry. Yet, in the current form, the paper suffers from several major weaknesses including inadequate literature review, unclear development of the selection criteria, wrong equations, inadequate validation of the findings, and many typographical errors. They reduce the paper’s contribution to the literature. Proofreading must be done thoroughly before submission of the manuscript.
Specific comments
Correct typos
Change Assessment to Selection in the title.
reverse logistic provider should be reverse logistics provider (e.g., line 11)
Line 11: delete “reverse logistic management or”
Line 15: contribute should be contribution
Line 29: add a period after [2,3]
Line 44 and 74: Thuse should be Thus
Line 63: choose should be choosing
Table 1: “sustainable supplier selection usi” is incomplete
Line 74: “this works is addressed” should be this study proposes
Line 201: AF companies should be AF company
Line 208: ans should be and
Line 266: date should be data
Page 13: delete the redundant words “For minimize”
Page 14: HF should be AF
Page 14: “This model of TOPSIS+MSGP benefit are shown in Table 2, a comparison between this proposed method and the others.” Table 2 should be Table 12. Rewrite this sentence for clarity.
Line 275: How should be how
Line 282: debate should be debated
Revise the following sentences for clarity and better flow of ideas
Line 10: what do you mean by “formal reference method”? Is that a systematic method?
Line 30-32: “Increasing growing demand and …”
Line 35: what are “these practices”?
Line 36-39: The definition of RLs should be presented at the beginning (i.e., in line 27)
Line 42: what do you mean by “RLs supply processing”?
Line 44: what are the “goals”?
Line 58-59” “This selection …”
Line 60-62: “Although the coordination between …”
Line 63-64” what are the tangible and intangible criteria?
Table 1: the sentences’ format/structure in the Research direction column is not standardized.
Line 67-68: It is odd to present that incomplete sentence.
Line 74: If your approach is a “fuzzy MCDM approach”, why do you present that as “TOPSIS+MSGP model” instead of fuzzy TOPSIS+MSGP model in line 67?
The Introduction section is not well structured and essential parts are missing. There are lots of typos and redundant sentences. Specifically, the weaknesses of the approaches in the literature are not highlighted and the research gaps and research questions are not identified. Justification or explanation of the proposed approach or model is not presented. The contributions of your study are unclear.
The Literature review section does not present a critical review of approaches that have been examined in reverse logistics provider selection in the food industry which is the focus of your study. There is lacking review of selection criteria for the food industry.
In section 5 An illustrative case study
Line 207: “Based on literature review (e.g., Chatterjee and Stević [23]; Durmić et al.
[24]; Wang ans Chen [26]; Fu and Liao [28,36]; manager and expert opinion, and used data analysis, the five qualitative criteria for choose the best reverse logistics provider are …”
The development process of the five selection criteria is unclear. There is lacking description of the criteria. It is unknown to what degree these criteria have been applied in the food industry.
In Table 3: why 7 is presented as an importance weight which is higher than 1?
Line 260: f1(x) <= 4 does not match with Equation 21.
Line 262: f2(x) >= 125 does not match with Equation 25.
Table 11: What do you mean by “days/time”? The value of delivery time in Table 11 should be expressed in hours per year. As is, it is difficult to understand why 0.035 in Table 11 becomes 0.35 in Equation 35. You need to check whether 0.35 was used in the calculation. If yes, the MSGP results would be wrong.
There is lacking examination of the stability and behavior of the final solution to changes in the input values or the process. For example, a sensitivity analysis of the proposed model on the incremental change of the weights of the main criteria. This is particularly the case when D3 gave relatively lower importance to C2 than D1 and D2 (see Table 3).
Besides, the robustness of the obtained results should be checked by a comparative analysis of the traditional TOPSIS and the fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Other compromise solution methods (shown in Table 12) such as (fuzzy) VIKOR can also be applied.
In the last section, managerial implications and limitations of the study are not presented.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This study proposes an interesting approach to select reverse logistics provider in the food industry. Yet, in the current form, the paper suffers from several major weaknesses including inadequate literature review, unclear development of the selection criteria, wrong equations, inadequate validation of the findings, and many typographical errors. They reduce the paper’s contribution to the literature. Proofreading must be done thoroughly before submission of the manuscript.
Specific comments
Correct typos
Change Assessment to Selection in the title.
reverse logistic provider should be reverse logistics provider (e.g., line 11)
Line 11: delete “reverse logistic management or”
Line 15: contribute should be contribution
Line 29: add a period after [2,3]
Line 44 and 74: Thuse should be Thus
Line 63: choose should be choosing
Table 1: “sustainable supplier selection usi” is incomplete
Line 74: “this works is addressed” should be this study proposes
Line 201: AF companies should be AF company
Line 208: ans should be and
Line 266: date should be data
Page 13: delete the redundant words “For minimize”
Page 14: HF should be AF
Page 14: “This model of TOPSIS+MSGP benefit are shown in Table 2, a comparison between this proposed method and the others.” Table 2 should be Table 12. Rewrite this sentence for clarity.
Line 275: How should be how
Line 282: debate should be debated
Response 1: We have modified above comments in the text. (Please see the red color words in the revised manuscript)
Point 2: Revise the following sentences for clarity and better flow of ideas
Line 10: what do you mean by “formal reference method”? Is that a systematic method?
Line 30-32: “Increasing growing demand and …”
Line 35: what are “these practices”?
Line 36-39: The definition of RLs should be presented at the beginning (i.e., in line 27)
Line 42: what do you mean by “RLs supply processing”?
Line 44: what are the “goals”?
Line 58-59” “This selection …”
Line 60-62: “Although the coordination between …”
Line 63-64” what are the tangible and intangible criteria?
Table 1: the sentences’ format/structure in the Research direction column is not standardized.
Line 67-68: It is odd to present that incomplete sentence.
Line 74: If your approach is a “fuzzy MCDM approach”, why do you present that as “TOPSIS+MSGP model” instead of fuzzy TOPSIS+MSGP model in line 67?
Response 2: We have modified above comments in the text. (Please see the red color words in the revised manuscript)
Point3: The Introduction section is not well structured and essential parts are missing. There are lots of typos and redundant sentences. Specifically, the weaknesses of the approaches in the literature are not highlighted and the research gaps and research questions are not identified. Justification or explanation of the proposed approach or model is not presented. The contributions of your study are unclear.
Response 3: We have modified the typos and addressed the research gaps, research questions and contributions. (Please see the red color words on page 3, 4 and 16 in the revised manuscript)
“However, food companies usually lack an orderly frame of reference for RLs partner selection, and there is no research on the selection of food RLs providers in previous literature. To fill thise gap, this study proposes a fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best RLs partner. The advantage of this approach considers both qualitative and quantitative criteria, which allows the DM to set multiple levels of segment expectations for RLs partner selection.”
“This study summarizes the supplier selection criteria in the literature, as shown in Table 2, which will be used in this study to select the most suitable items through group decision-making.”
“The contributions of this work are twofold: (1) it addressed an easy and effective model to help a food company to select the best RLs provider in practice; (2) the combined strength of this approach is that it considers both qualitative and quantitative criteria for RLs providers selection problems, where more is better, in case such as the benefit criteria, and less is better, in case such as the cost criteria.”
Point4: The Literature review section does not present a critical review of approaches that have been examined in reverse logistics provider selection in the food industry which is the focus of your study. There is lacking review of selection criteria for the food industry.
Response 4: In the past, there was a lack of relevant research literature on the food industry, so the purpose of this study is to fill this gap.
Point5: The development process of the five selection criteria is unclear. There is lacking description of the criteria. It is unknown to what degree these criteria have been applied in the food industry.
Response 5: The development process of the five selection criteria was discussed from the literature in Table 2 using Delphi techniques. (Please see the Table 2 on page 4 in the revised manuscript)
Point 6:
In Table 3: why 7 is presented as an importance weight which is higher than 1?
Line 260: f1(x) <= 4 does not match with Equation 21.
Line 262: f2(x) >= 125 does not match with Equation 25.
Table 11: What do you mean by “days/time”? The value of delivery time in Table 11 should be expressed in hours per year. As is, it is difficult to understand why 0.035 in Table 11 becomes 0.35 in Equation 35. You need to check whether 0.35 was used in the calculation. If yes, the MSGP results would be wrong.
Response 6: All of the above issues have been corrected. (Please see the the red color words in the revised manuscript)
Point 7: There is lacking examination of the stability and behavior of the final solution to changes in the input values or the process. For example, a sensitivity analysis of the proposed model on the incremental change of the weights of the main criteria. This is particularly the case when D3 gave relatively lower importance to C2 than D1 and D2 (see Table 3).
Response 7: Basically, qualitative and quantitative comparisons do not use sensitivity analysis. This study emphasizes that considering both qualitative and quantitative criteria is superior to only qualitative or quantitative criteria. Therefore, the method of expressing its advantages in Table 13 has also been used by some researchers in the past, so readers should be able to understand it.
Please refer to the following literature:
- Liao, C.N. and Kao, H.P. (2014). An evaluation approach to logistics service using fuzzy theory, quality function development and goal programming. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 68(2), 54-64.
- Chen, K.H., Liao, C. N. and Wu, L. C. (2014). A selection model to logistic centers based on TOPSIS and MCGP methods: The case of airline industry. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/470128
- Liao, C.N., Fu, Y.K. and Wu, L.C. (2016). Integrated FAHP, ARAS-F and MSGP methods for green supplier evaluation and selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 22(5), 651-669.
- Liao, C.N., Lin, C.H. and Fu, Y.K. (2016). An integrative new product launches strategies selection model using ANP, TOPSIS and MCGP. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(5), 715-737.
- Hsu, H.H., Huang, W.L., Fu, Y.K., Liao, C.N. (2016). A fuzzy model to green supplier selection using AHP, ARAS and MCGP approach. Transylvanian Review. XXIV, No. 8, Special Issue, 2016
- Fu, Y.K. and Liao, C.N. (2021). Selection of in-flight duty-free product suppliers using a combination Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy ARAS and MSGP methods. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. Volume 2021, Article ID 8545379, 13 pages
Point 8: Besides, the robustness of the obtained results should be checked by a comparative analysis of the traditional TOPSIS and the fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Other compromise solution methods (shown in Table 12) such as (fuzzy) VIKOR can also be applied.
Response 8: Please refer to Response 7, thank you.
Point 9: In the last section, managerial implications and limitations of the study are not presented.
Response 9: Please see the the red color words on page 16 in the revised manuscript.
“In addition, in terms of management implications, (1) when making decisions on MCDM issues, both qualitative and quantitative criteria should be considered to meet the practicality of management, and (2) this study proposed a simple method, which can be calculated using a common Excel software tool, to help DMs select the best RLs provider in management practice.This study is limited to the food industry, therefore, the proposed method may be useful for various industry MCDM problems.”
In addition, (Fuzzy) VIKOR will be used as a future research method.
We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank y
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Review report for the paper: Assessment of sustainable reverse logistic provider using the fuzzy TOPSIS and MSGP framework in food industry
The study is mainly on developing mathematical techniques for RLPS. To date, many applications have performed F-TOPSIS. The research topic has not been scientifically addressed. We do not see an in-depth literature review. Therefore, it is not innovative enough. Overall, it is hard to find the novelty/originality. Therefore, I am unsure whether this paper meets the high quality of the Sustainability journal. As it stands, therefore, I suggested that the manuscript cannot be recommended to accept for journal publication temporarily.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The study is mainly on developing mathematical techniques for RLPS. To date, many applications have performed F-TOPSIS. The research topic has not been scientifically addressed. We do not see an in-depth literature review. Therefore, it is not innovative enough. Overall, it is hard to find the novelty/originality. Therefore, I am unsure whether this paper meets the high quality of the Sustainability journal. As it stands, therefore, I suggested that the manuscript cannot be recommended to accept for journal publication temporarily.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. This study has been revised according to the comments of three reviewers. This paper should meet the high quality requirements of Sustainability journals. Please support the publication.
We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The article explores the application of fuzzy TOPSIS in determining reverse logistic providers in the food industry. Overall are good but the following are some suggestions for re-consideration:
Abstract:
Add a few main findings in the abstract because the current version is like a proposal.
Introduction:
Please re-check the writing format because the line spacing is different from other paragraphs.
Table 1: Many abbreviations do not well spell out.
Line 67. the statement "will be shown in Section 4" are too general.
Literature Review:
Overall are not well written. The discussion is not structured and organized. Please revise it, especially for lines 83 - 109.
Should add why fuzzy TOPSIS and MSGP models are significant to reverse logistics partner selection. Any previous research to support the application.
Figure 1 is not well explained including why LINDO is used in the integration procedure.
The Proposed Method:
Why the steps in the section are not aligned with Figure 1?
An illustrative case study:
The background for the case study is not well discussed.
How all five qualitative criteria were determined? How to relate the criteria with reverse logistic activities?
Typo error for Figure 4 - suppose as Figure 3.
Typo error for Table 2 - Suppose as Table 12.
No discussion for Table 12. and how to relate it with results in fuzzy TOPSIS analysis.
Conclusion:
The conclusion and the analysis are not significant. Please improve it.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: Abstract:
Add a few main findings in the abstract because the current version is like a proposal.
Response 1: We have added the findings in the abstract. (Please see the blue color words on page 1 in the revised manuscript)
“The main finding is that using both qualitative and quantitative criteria when making decisions is more than using either qualitative or quantitative criteria independently.”
Point 2: Introduction:
Please re-check the writing format because the line spacing is different from other paragraphs.
Table 1: Many abbreviations do not well spell out.
Line 67. the statement "will be shown in Section 4" are too general.
Response 2: We have corrected according to your comments. (Please see the blue color words on page 2 in the revised manuscript)
“……model benefits are shown in Table 13, which compares the research gaps or research problems between the proposed method and competing methods.”
Point 3: Literature Review:
Overall are not well written. The discussion is not structured and organized. Please revise it, especially for lines 83 - 109.
Response 3-1:
We have summarized the supplier selection criteria in the literature in Table 2.
Should add why fuzzy TOPSIS and MSGP models are significant to reverse logistics partner selection. Any previous research to support the application.
Response 3-2:
This study emphasizes that considering both qualitative and quantitative criteria is superior to only qualitative or quantitative criteria. Therefore, the method of expressing its advantages in Table 13 has also been used by some researchers in the past, so readers should be able to understand it.
Please refer to the following literature:
- Liao, C.N. and Kao, H.P. (2014). An evaluation approach to logistics service using fuzzy theory, quality function development and goal programming. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 68(2), 54-64.
- Chen, K.H., Liao, C. N. and Wu, L. C. (2014). A selection model to logistic centers based on TOPSIS and MCGP methods: The case of airline industry. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/470128
- Liao, C.N., Fu, Y.K. and Wu, L.C. (2016). Integrated FAHP, ARAS-F and MSGP methods for green supplier evaluation and selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 22(5), 651-669.
- Liao, C.N., Lin, C.H. and Fu, Y.K. (2016). An integrative new product launches strategies selection model using ANP, TOPSIS and MCGP. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(5), 715-737.
- Hsu, H.H., Huang, W.L., Fu, Y.K., Liao, C.N. (2016). A fuzzy model to green supplier selection using AHP, ARAS and MCGP approach. Transylvanian Review. XXIV, No. 8, Special Issue, 2016
- Fu, Y.K. and Liao, C.N. (2021). Selection of in-flight duty-free product suppliers using a combination Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy ARAS and MSGP methods. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. Volume 2021, Article ID 8545379, 13 pages
Figure 1 is not well explained including why LINDO is used in the integration procedure.
Response 3-3:
The Figure 1 only illustrates this integrated process and applied to the optimal selection using LINGO computing software.
Point4: The Proposed Method:
Why the steps in the section are not aligned with Figure 1?
Response 4: The steps are shown in the blue color words on page 8 in the revised manuscript.
“……TOPSIS and MSGP methods is as follows steps [28] :
(1) Select the appropriate linguistic variables for the importance weight of selection criteria and the linguistic ratings for the RL provider.
(2) Aggregate the weight of criterion and pool the DMs’ ratings to obtain the aggregated fuzzy rating of the reverse logistics provider under criterion .
(3) A fuzzy decision matrix is created and the matrix is normalized.
(4) Create a weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix.
(5) Determine the fuzzy positive ideal solution and fuzzy negative ideal solution .
(6) Calculate the distance of each RL provider from and .
(7) Calculate the closeness coefficient ( ) for each RL provider.
(8) To determine the optimal RLs provider, the weights of each provider should be maximized. Thus, using the closeness coefficients obtained from Step 7 for each reverse logistic provider, the integrated MSGP model is used to determine the optimal RL provider.”
Point 5: An illustrative case study:
The background for the case study is not well discussed.
Response 5-1: The background have been corrected. (Please see the blue color words on page 9 in the revised manuscript)
“AF is a common food-manufacturing company in China. It sells food in its 156 chain stores in Fujian, China. Its main product is chocolate. The company's chief executive officer (CEO) Chang aims to select a food RLs provider to recycle and process the returned food and packaging resources, and these recycled resources are processed and used for other purposes.”
How all five qualitative criteria were determined? How to relate the criteria with reverse logistic activities?
Response 5-2: All five qualitative criteria were determined by using Delphi techniques.
“…..using Delphi techniques [14] the five qualitative criteria for selecting the best reverse logistics provider were RLs capability , service quality , green level , coordination ability and financial risk for the present case,….”
Typo error for Figure 4 - suppose as Figure 3.
Typo error for Table 2 - Suppose as Table 12.
Response 5-3: The typo error have been corrected.
No discussion for Table 12. and how to relate it with results in fuzzy TOPSIS analysis.
Response 5-4: Based on your suggestion, Table 13 has been discussed. (Please see the blue color words on page 15 in the revised manuscript)
“This proposed method combined fuzzy TOPSIS with MSGP, it considers both two critera of qualitative and quantitative for RLs provider selection and allows the DMs to solve the multiple segment aspiration levels problems.”
Point 6: Conclusion:
The conclusion and the analysis are not significant. Please improve it.
Response 6: The conclusion has been improved.
We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Please see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have according your comment revised, We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Authors,
The manuscript is related to the selection of sustainable suppliers for reverse logistics in the food industry using a combination of TOPSIS and MSGP. The methods are well represented and the proposed research work is important for food production and supply chain. These are the following major concerns.
1. Title looks complex. In the Title, I see “selecting sustainable reverse logistic providers”, where the noun “sustainable reverse logistic providers” is too big. Why not use “third-party logistics” or “sustainable suppliers”? Make it simple and understandable. I think there is not a big difference.
2. Abstract’s conclusion is not well written: “Qualitative and Quantitative” words have been used three times in the end. Just make it clear and use crunch results with managerial insights at the end of the Abstract.
3. Table 01 is a good representation of methods used in the selection of suppliers. I suggest adding the year with the authors to understand the publication year and evaluation. One more thing: better to add with respect to the publishing year. Your research work must be added at the ending row of the Table.
4. Same is the case with Table 02. Also, improve the caption of Table 02.
5. Caption of Figure 01 is vague. Use complete statements in Caption e.g.., The integration procedure for the selection of sustainable suppliers.
6. Major Concern: TOPSIS with the combination of the MSGP has already been used by researchers in the selection of sustainable suppliers, justify your contribution with respect to the work of Fu and Liao [28].
7. Major Concern: Figure 04: five criteria have been selected from the research work of [14], but these are generic factors. For the food industry, how can you use the same generic factors? There are too many other factors in Literature: How only five and taken from [14]. It must be verified by the Food Industry experts in the form of a Questionnaire or response.
8. Major Concern: Why food industry a case study? The problem is significant there or it can be applied in any environment?
9. I recommend adding one more section before Conclusions named “Discussion and Managerial Insights” to briefly explain the benefits and advantages of outcomes obtained from your work. In addition, discuss each outcome with reference to the benchmark and its impact.
10. There are numerous English grammatical errors in the article. Please read the article thoroughly and correct all the errors.
Author Response
We have according your comment revised, We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
1. How the Delphi method is employed? I have not seen any questionnaires.
2. Literature review needs to be presented in a sequence. Better provide in subsequent sub-sections.
3. Results need to be better discussed.
4. References are not adequate. Consider the latest article related to the research topic.
A sustainable-circular citrus closed-loop supply chain configuration: Pareto-based algorithms
A Novel Quality Function Deployment Based Integrated Framework for Improving Supply Chain Sustainability
Pricing decisions in the closed-loop supply chain network, taking into account the queuing system in production centers
Author Response
We have according your comment revised, We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Most of the comments have been addressed.
The authors would like to correct the typo logistic and change it to logistics. E.g. in the paper title, Table 10, line 267, 278, and p.15.
Author Response
We have according your comment revised, We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
After revisions to the article, it still does not have sufficient quality and publication potential.
Author Response
We have according your comment revised, We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have minimally revised the manuscript based on the previous comments and I cannot find any significant changes based on the 'Major revision' suggestion. In addition, my two most critical points concerning 1) the novelty between this manuscript and the authors' cited their own 'in press' journal and 2) the justification for the reverse logistics in particular are not justified in my opinion. Thus, my suggestions is still for the 'major revision'
Author Response
This paper has been corrected by the author based on your comments. We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Authors,
No further comments
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
1. A questionnaire is needed for conducting Delphi analysis.
2. Consider providing a literature review section under sub-sections.
3. References are not adequate. There are enormous articles available related to reverse logistics.
(i) Mohammadkhani, A., & Mousavi, S. M. (2023). A new last aggregation fuzzy compromise solution approach for evaluating sustainable third-party reverse logistics providers with an application to food industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 216, 119396.
(ii) Koppiahraj, K., Bathrinath, S., & Saravanasankar, S. Decision Making using Fuzzy PROMETHEE for Reverse Supply Chain Management Outsourcing.
(iii) Ding, L., Wang, T., & Chan, P. (2023). Forward and reverse logistics for circular economy in construction: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135981.
Author Response
This paper has been corrected by the author based on your comments. We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
It is hopeful that the authors fulfilled the vast majority of review recommendations. However, there are still a few critical shortcomings. First, there should be a discussion section comparing the findings of similar studies with yours. Second, the literature is still shallow/scarce. It is therefore recommended that you expand the literature to include: Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model; Multi-criteria decision making for green supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study of a home appliance manufacturer; A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Reverse Logistics Service Quality for Reverse Logistics Service Providers: A Systematic Literature Review; Selection of Third-Party Reverse Logistics Service Provider Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making; A new last aggregation fuzzy compromise solution approach for evaluating sustainable third-party reverse logistics providers with an application to food industry.
Author Response
This paper has been corrected by the author based on your comments. We hope that the modifications in the revised manuscript are appropriate as far as the paper is concerned. Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Title: Assessment of sustainable reverse logistic provider using the fuzzy TOPSIS and MSGP framework in food industry
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2047407
The following are my comments on the manuscript:
1. Abstract: The first line is not clear. From the first mention onwards, use the abbreviations. In Line 11, replace the word reverse logistics with RLs. Mention key findings in the abstract. Improvise the keywords.
2. Introduction: Use the abbreviation RLs uniformly throughout the manuscript. What is/are the research gap(s) or research problem(s) identified through a review of earlier literature? In Table 1, what is B. Sc, VIKOR-MOOP, and so on? The explanation for the abbreviations must be provided in the first mention. Also, illustrate how this study is going to address the identified research gaps. Consider providing the structure of the manuscript at the end.
3. Literature review: Check the reference [4], [7]. This section can be improved. Consider providing under sub-sections. Move the structure of the manuscript to the introduction section.
4. Methodology: Okay.
5. The proposed method: Reconsider Table 2. Better explain in words.
6. An illustrative case study: Explain more about the Delphi method. Is the single-stage or double-stage Delphi method followed? Provide a reference for Table 3. Results and discussion is missing. It is very important.
7. Conclusion: Lacks clarity. Summarize by providing the highlights and contributions of the study. Also, suggest the future scope of the study.
8. References: Consider the research articles published in the last five years. Avoid old articles.
The manuscript has many flaws. Some are major technical and methodological flaws. There are many typo errors and the language of the manuscript needs attention. Hence, it was suggested major revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to present a comprehensive approach, combining technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and multi-segment goal programming (MSGP) model to select RLs provider. The paper is quite interesting. However, I have major concern about the novelty and convincingness of the paper.
1. My major concern is the novelty of the paper. The methods presented in this paper are not new since the Fu and Liao [28] has already presented it for another problem. Besides, advantages of the method adopted in this paper has not been varified since no comparisons are illustrated.
2. Line 42: "Based on literature review, manager and expert opinion …" Please provide reference for the choosing of the criteria.
3. There are many syntax errors and ambiguous expressions. For instance, Line 42: "Thus, business reverse logistics plays ... " Line 42: "Thuse" ? Please rephrase.
