A Systematic Literature Review on Logistics Information Needs for Sharing in Malaysian Disaster Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper Updating the FMEA approach with mitigation assessment capabilities – A Systematic Literature Review on Logistics Information Needs for Sharing in Malaysian Disaster Management. The paper has a lot of problems.
· The abstract is not well written. The most important results must be emphasized.
· Keywords should include: review, literature review, or SLR.
· The last paragraph in the introduction section is the structure of the paper (several sentences for each section). This is missing.
· Sections 3 and 4 are very trivial, and not written in a scientific manner.
· Research questions must be relevant and related to the previous research.
· In this form Research objective should be a part of another section.
· The review paper should not just be a list of what everyone has done but should identify trends and gaps in the literature and offer suggestions for furthering the field relative to the specific phenomenon, with a VERY STRONG CRITICAL VIEW AND VERY STRONG METHODOLOGY (see suggested references).
· Methodology is very trivial. For example, a very short period is observed for this kind of paper, only 4 years. Why? Are there other review papers published before? Why papers published before are not important for the observed problem?
Several inclusion and exclusion criteria are determined. First, with regard to the time-line, a period of 5 years was selected between the years 2018 and 2022 as an adequate duration for examining the evolution of research and related publications.
· In table 2 exclusion criteria are very problematic. For example why review papers published before are not relevant for this study. Results can be compered, previous and new trends also, etc.
· It is necessary to understand the purpose and aim of the paper as well as its "position" in relation to previous research (also gap analysis).
· 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 section 4.Research objective and section 7.Limitations are contradictory to a certain extent.
· Table 5 is not usable.
· Two sections 7 are in the paper.
· The paper has no scientific and practical contributions.,
· Results and findings are questionable
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.
Morashti, J.A.; An, Y.; Jang, H. A (2022) Systematic Literature Review of Sustainable Packaging in Supply Chain Management. Sustainability, 14, 4921.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you for the achievement of this work.
The article, entitled "A Systematic Literature Review on Logistics Information Needs for Sharing in Malaysian Disaster Management" is a theoretical and methodical study that discusses issues related to Humanitarian Logistics, Logistics Information, Disaster Management, and Systematic Literature Review.
The represented theoretical study in this paper assets aspect of the analysis of the existing literature on the information needed by humanitarian logistics for disaster management in Malaysia. The article fits with the general scope of the journal. The aims presented in the abstract and the Introduction are complete, and the methodology used is appropriate.
The following point may improve the overall representation of the work:
- Figures might need citations if the concept was from someone others.
- Table 5 Thematic analysis is not readable.
- Keywords – The author should add more relevant words
- The Introduction - Authors should explain in detail how the research was conducted. It will be beneficial for the article if the authors give brief descriptions of research methods and write the organization and structure of the manuscript.
Thanks for your efforts and time.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
REVIEW COMMENTS
sustainability-2191755
Title: A Systematic Literature Review on Logistics Information Needs
for Sharing in Malaysian Disaster Management
The authors are suggested to mention “Qualitative Data Analysis Software” in line num 25, Abstract. (Nvivo or Atlas.ti as an analysis tool)
In Section 1 line num 77-82, the author has criticized about Malaysian Police “Aside from that, multiple fake news cases about the disaster disseminated via social media influence humanitarian agencies' decision making process. Kota Bharu, Kelan-tan, police have denied the declaration of a state of emergency following the massive floods that hit the state and once again had to deny rumours that 10 people were believed to have drowned because they were trapped inside a house in Guchil, Kuala Krai. The spread of false information has perplexed all parties, particularly humanitarian logistics”
Will such criticism be allowed to publish as per their law……please look in to this based on law.
In Section 112, how do the author claim this study will be appropriate to whole “Asian region.” Based on only Malaysia.
Section 3. “Research Question” and 4. “Research Objective” need to be expanded with suitable contents.
After Page num. 7, again page 2 has been initiated. Please correct it
The Table 5 and Table 6 “Thematic analysis” in page 10 and 11 are not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper belongs to the topic of humanitarian logistics. The authors use the PRISMA review method to analyse the existing literature (2018 - 2022) on the information needed by humanitarian logistics for disaster management in Malaysia. Two research databases were used - Web of Science and Scopus.
There is only one research question.
The study is limited to Malaysia.
Authors should describe research findings in relation to international research findings.
The number of analyzed results is rather low.
There are several minor format-related issues (line spacing, Some parts are hard to read).
I suggest reviewing it before submitting the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
In accordance with the proofreading criteria of the publisher, I prepared a report, which would be as follows:
The content of the proposed review paper meets the objectives set out in the journal’s aims and special issue information letter as well.
Using the well-known scientific methods named PRISMA applied in accordance with the author’s research objective resulted useful scientific achievements.
The strength of the article is, among other things that the authors analysed and evaluated the humanitarian logistics practices in disaster management, where the main focus was given to Malaysian national and Asian countries regional level practices.
In addition to the excellent methodological research and literature assessment complemented by the authors, I recommend shortly introducing in 1-st chapter (introduction) the role of international and regional disaster management cooperation activities and basic documents, such as the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, or the ASEAN countries disaster management cooperation iniciatives. I would definitely introduce among others the following documents: “ASEAN Disaster Management Reference Handbook”, “ASEAN vision 2025 on Disaster Management” or “ASEAN UN Joint strategic Plan of Action on Disaster Management”.
I would also recommend adding a few paragraph to the chapter named as “conclusions”, in which the authors should formulate some general proposals for future research related to author’s findings.
The references used in the main chapters are relevant and assist the reader to understand the authors proposals.
The illustrations used are regular.
Based on the above, I suggest publishing the reviewed article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper should be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Comments have been carried out
Author Response
Thank you for your positive and constructive comments.
