Reverse Logistics Network Model of Dual-Channel Recycling Boxes Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimization: A Multi-Objective and Uncertain Environment Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research looks quite solid. Review written comprehensively and problem formulation is clear and relevant. However, regarding the mathematical part, (section 2.3) is too complicated to follow the process, especially, when notation of variables is provided in section after objective formulation and event not sorted alphabetically (maybe some separation of notation by topic by including flowchart how optimization process works may help reader to better follow the process). Also, unclear formulas 4—7 by the meaning that if standardization is performed “…standardized to the [0, 1]…” - while in Tables 2,6,7 … some objective values are greater than 10. Regarding to software used, “Matlab” itself is too wide description to use such (i.e. “By setting … in Matlab”, 4.5 section). The final conclusions paragraph should be expanded.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the comments. The following changes have been made to the manuscript to address these issues.
A table explaining the parameters has been added before the formula. The code error was corrected for the standardization issue. and presented results between [0-1], the conclusions of the empirical study were not changed, only the order of magnitude. And a statistical analysis was performed for the conclusions of the empirical study. The "matlab"-related write-ups have been removed. The contribution of the article is highlighted in the conclusion section.
In addition, the research questions and objectives are clarified, and the article's contributions are described in the first section. A review of the literature on GA, the advantages of GA, the setting of GA parameters, and the computational flow of GA are added.
Thank you for your review, have a good day!
Best Regards,
Guo CHEN
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
paper applies GA for reverse logistic network model, comments:
- Please change the title to more specific idea on the work done in the paper
- quantify results in abstract and explain why we need GA. There are other meta-heuristic approach and why GA in specific
- What is the research problem, please explain in simple terms in Introduction
- what are the issues with earlier model. Is this the first time such a work is done, if yes why earlier the focus has not been on the model, if no, how is your model unique from others
- I find the formulation difficult, please spend enough time to explain very clearly the working of GA. Take small example close the the actual problem, and clearly explain the working step by step.
- Comparison is not sufficient, it must be improved with statistical metrics
- In conclusion, explain limitations, merits, future works in detail
- Edit all references as per format please
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the comments. The following changes have been made to the manuscript to address these issues.
Findings are added to the abstract, the introduction section has been divided, and the subheadings have been amended to highlight the background of the study, the problem, the objectives, and the contribution of the article. An overview of GA, the advantages of GA, and the process of running GA have been added. Adaptations were standardized, and the empirical results were statistically tested. Highlighted article contributions in conclusion and corrected incorrect formatting in the reference.
Thank you for your review, have a good day!
Best Regards,
Guo CHEN
Reviewer 3 Report
Major revision
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the comments. The following changes have been made to the manuscript to address these issues.
The abstract states the article's objectives, methodology, findings, and implications. The introduction is divided, stating the study's background, problem, objectives, and contribution. The parameters in Q1-Q10, ESG, and Eq. are explained. The two-channel recovery and the Stackelberg game are reviewed. The empirical results are standardized and tested statistically. The contribution of the study is stated again in conclusion. Old references have been avoided where possible and incorrect formatting has been modified.
Thank you for your review, have a good day!
Best Regards,
Guo CHEN
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The structure of the manuscript needs to be improved:
a. There is no separate introduction section, which should describe the main ideas, problems and topics, highlighting the research gaps.
b. There should be a separate Literature review section, which should describe the previous research in the field of:
i. reverse logistics network models,
ii. multi-objective optimization methods of reverse logistics problems.
c. The structure of the section 2. Logistic network modelling - must be improved; example:
2. Formulation of the Decision Problem
2.1. Definition of the Decision Problem (structure of recycling boxes reserve logistics, stakeholders of the decision problem)
2.2 General information/ assumptions
2.3. Decision Variables (mathematical formulas + symbol description)
2.4. The Family of Criterions (mathematical formulas + symbol description)
2.4. Constraints (mathematical formulas + symbol description)
The next: computational experiment (and value ranges of parameters) etc.
The symbol descriptions are shown in Table1 of 4.1 section – why?
2. What is the justification of rated on three levels? (section 2.1 Fundamental setting, page 5)
a. T1: The recycled boxes has little damage.
b. T2: Average level of damage to the recycle bin.
c. T3: The recycled boxes have a high level of damage.
3. How were the value (weights) of parameters (α, β, χ, δ, ε, φ, γ, η) chosen? By the authors or by the decision makers of Ployrocks chemistry company?
4. How were the value of: population size, chromosome node number, iteration number, mutation probability, crossover probability chosen?
5. Table 1. – cost parameters: 1 Yuan = xxxx USD, 1 Yuan = xxxx EUR
6. Text editing:
a. The previous version of the Sustainability template file (see Microsoft Word template https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot or LaTeX template https://www.mdpi.com/authors/latex).
b. Selected errors page 2:
i. “Manoj kumar […]” – „Manoj Kumar […]” (a capital letter).
ii. “Cai et al.(2009)” – “Cai et al. (2009)” (space).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the comments. The following changes have been made to the manuscript to address these issues.
The introduction section is adjusted, describing the research background, problem, objectives, and contributions. The structure of the literature review is revised. The title and structure of the second part are revised. The criteria for graded recovery and the sources of standardized treatment parameters are described. The GA is reviewed, parameters are described, and operational procedures are added. The exchange rate between RMB and USD was stated under the parameter table. Empirical results were standardized and statistically tested. Incorrect reference formatting has been corrected.
Thank you for your review, have a good day!
Best Regards,
Guo CHEN
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments are addressed, paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your approval and have a good day!
Best wishes,
Guo CHEN
Reviewer 3 Report
All the comments are addressed. However, the reference is not in the format. Check it. The manuscript can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope you have a good day.
Thank you for your comments and the format of the reference has been changed as requested.
Thanks again!
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript still contain numerous errors:
1. The previous version of the Sustainability template file (see Microsoft Word template https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot or LaTeX template https://www.mdpi.com/authors/latex).
2. Figure 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 – see attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope you have a good day.
Thank you for your comments and I have made the following adjustments.
- the format of the reference has been changed as requested
- The vertical coordinates of the images in the empirical analysis have been changed to two decimal points.
- The government subsidy unit in the image has been added, but the unit for sensitivity and impact intensity is 1, which I am afraid I cannot add.
