Modeling the Decision and Coordination Mechanism of Power Battery Closed-Loop Supply Chain Using Markov Decision Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented for review is a very interesting consideration of a closed-loop  supply chain using the example of electric battery manufacturers. The authors have addressed an important and significant topic in today's market economy, when most countries are trying to meet environmental requirements.

However, the study lacks primarily:

-a reference in the current literature,

-concerning the closed-loop supply chain,

-problems related to reverse logistics

-explanation of the role of closed supply chain implementation in electric battery production,

- background on the use of recycling in the economy with a particular focus on the recycling of electric batteries, 

-what role closed-loop supply chains play today,

It is not enough just to simulate the Markov model, you must first indicate the purpose of the study, but not superficially only with a lot of commitment. In addition, it is worth expanding the bibliography and going beyond the circle of Asian authors. A large role in the creation of a circular economy is played by the European Union. It is worth  reaching for its studies on green governance or sustainable development.  

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Greetings! I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for pointing out the areas that need improvement in my manuscript. I sincerely apologize for the late response to your comments.

Due to an unfortunate accident I encountered recently, I was unable to make the necessary revisions to my article in a timely manner. It was only with the gradual improvement of my condition that I could return to my work. I have now carefully addressed each of your suggestions and made the corresponding changes to the manuscript, which are marked in red in the revision mode of the document.

I kindly request that you review the revised manuscript at your earliest convenience. The prospect of my article being published in your prestigious journal is something I eagerly anticipate, and I am truly thankful for your insightful feedback and assistance.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the Abstract section:

(1) Lack of listing of conclusions.

(2) A brief statement of the significance of the study is missing.

2. In the Introduction section:

   (3) Lack of case studies and data to support the background section of the study.

   (4) What is the theoretical basis of this manuscript? It is not clear.

   (5) What is the scientific question that this manuscript proposes to address? It is not clear.

   (6) Please summarise and expand on the theoretical and practical significance of this manuscript.

   (7) What is the innovation of this manuscript? How does it differ from other studies?

3.In the Literature Review section:

      (8) It is surprising that section 2.1 does not cite a single reference.

      (9) References are not cited properly. It is clear that the references in this manuscript are not ordered alphabetically by author or in the order in which they appear in the text.

      (10) The author does not have an overall grasp of the field of study, lacks research logic and is not critical enough.

4. In the Markov Decision Process Model section:

      (11) Some of the ideas lacked documentary support. For example, what is the basis for " The discount factor is a constant between 0 and 1 that is used to indicate the importance attached to future rewards. A larger discount factor indicates a greater emphasis on future rewards; a smaller discount factor indicates a lesser emphasis on future rewards." in the second paragraph of section 3.1?

      (12) Why was the Markov decision process chosen for modelling instead of other methods? Please discuss it.

5. In the Case Studies section:

      (13) If the parameter is not a parameter for which the manufacturer has provided data, please indicate the source of the data.

      (14) This manuscript does not present the results and data from solving the model using both methods.

      (15) Please show the graphs of the sensitivity analyses and Learning curves please, the data is seriously missing.

6. The discussion section is missing from this manuscript.

7. The conclusions of this manuscript are not sufficiently clear.

      In summary, this manuscript lacks research logic, data and graphs are severely missing, and the quality is extremely rough. It is recommended that it be submitted to another journal.

 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Greetings! I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for pointing out the areas that need improvement in my manuscript. I sincerely apologize for the late response to your comments.

Due to an unfortunate accident I encountered recently, I was unable to make the necessary revisions to my article in a timely manner. It was only with the gradual improvement of my condition that I could return to my work. I have now carefully addressed each of your suggestions and made the corresponding changes to the manuscript, which are marked in red in the revision mode of the document.

I kindly request that you review the revised manuscript at your earliest convenience. The prospect of my article being published in your prestigious journal is something I eagerly anticipate, and I am truly thankful for your insightful feedback and assistance.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review-MDPI

Place	It is	I propose	Remark
Page 3 Line 92-95			Something is clearly wrong.
Page 4 Line 109	device, and the renewable energy source. , dynamically…	device, and the renewable energy source, dynamically …
Page 4 Line 110-111	Ricardo A et al. (2023)[16] Based on an Italian survey, analyzed the impact of Industry 4.0		Please improve the English.

 

Overall, the article is clear, interesting and actual. It attempts to model decision-making of a closed-loop supply chain for power batteries from a multi-objective perspective, using a Markov decision model.

 

 

Weak points:

1.      As a possible shortcoming it can be said that authors consider one manufacturer, one distributor, one consumer, one recycler and one reuse provider, neglecting competition in the supply chain.

2.      Another weak feature of the paper is that only one battery, one period of decision-making and one probability distribution are considered.

 

Why do the authors consider thar these weak points can be neglected? How do these two assumptions affect the results?

 

A scrupulous review of the text is necessary, although the flaws are minor. I believe that I

have signaled some of these flaws in the previous table.

 

Over 40% of references were published less than 5 years ago, which is a good quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Review-MDPI

Place	It is	I propose	Remark
Page 3 Line 92-95			Something is clearly wrong.
Page 4 Line 109	device, and the renewable energy source. , dynamically…	device, and the renewable energy source, dynamically …
Page 4 Line 110-111	Ricardo A et al. (2023)[16] Based on an Italian survey, analyzed the impact of Industry 4.0		Please improve the English.

 

Overall, the article is clear, interesting and actual. It attempts to model decision-making of a closed-loop supply chain for power batteries from a multi-objective perspective, using a Markov decision model.

 

 

Weak points:

1.      As a possible shortcoming it can be said that authors consider one manufacturer, one distributor, one consumer, one recycler and one reuse provider, neglecting competition in the supply chain.

2.      Another weak feature of the paper is that only one battery, one period of decision-making and one probability distribution are considered.

 

Why do the authors consider thar these weak points can be neglected? How do these two assumptions affect the results?

 

A scrupulous review of the text is necessary, although the flaws are minor. I believe that I

have signaled some of these flaws in the previous table.

 

Over 40% of references were published less than 5 years ago, which is a good quality.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Greetings! I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for pointing out the areas that need improvement in my manuscript. I sincerely apologize for the late response to your comments.

Due to an unfortunate accident I encountered recently, I was unable to make the necessary revisions to my article in a timely manner. It was only with the gradual improvement of my condition that I could return to my work. I have now carefully addressed each of your suggestions and made the corresponding changes to the manuscript, which are marked in red in the revision mode of the document.

I kindly request that you review the revised manuscript at your earliest convenience. The prospect of my article being published in your prestigious journal is something I eagerly anticipate, and I am truly thankful for your insightful feedback and assistance.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the corrections made, I accept the article in its current form. Nevertheless, I recommend more footnotes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

I am writing to resubmit the manuscript titled above, which was previously submitted to Sustainability. We have given due consideration to the feedback provided by the reviewers and have made the following revisions to our manuscript:

 

Formatting Corrections: We have meticulously reviewed the entire manuscript and made all necessary formatting corrections as per the journal's guidelines. This includes adjustments to headings, subheadings, and the overall layout to ensure consistency and readability.

 

Footnotes Addition: In response to the suggestion to provide additional context and sources, we have incorporated several footnotes that offer expanded explanations and references. These footnotes can be found throughout the text where relevant, providing the reader with a deeper understanding of the content and the research underpinning our study.

 

Clarifications and Expansions: We have also clarified and expanded upon certain sections of the text to address the reviewers' comments and to enhance the overall quality and comprehensiveness of our work.

 

We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and made it suitable for publication in Sustainability. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work and are hopeful for a positive evaluation.

 

Enclosed with this letter, please find the revised manuscript, a marked-up copy highlighting the changes, and a response to reviewers detailing all the modifications made. We thank you and the reviewers for your valuable suggestions and for the time invested in the review process.

 

We look forward to your feedback.

 

   

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although efforts have been made to revise this manuscript, some fundamental issues have not been addressed.
For example, not only does this manuscript lack a rationale for model construction, but it still lacks a clear reporting of the robustness testing process. In addition, the discussion section still does not report the similarities and differences between this manuscript and any similar studies.
These flaws seriously undermine the reliability of this manuscript, and I am not convinced that the authors are capable of changing these serious flaws.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

 

I am writing to submit the revised version of our manuscript, which was previously submitted to Sustainability. The manuscript ID is [insert manuscript ID here]. We have carefully considered the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers and have made substantial revisions to address each point.

 

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have:

 

Enhanced the rationale for using the Markov Decision Process (MDP) as the foundational theory for our model by providing a more detailed explanation of its suitability for the dynamic and uncertain nature of closed-loop supply chains.

 

Strengthened the robustness of our study by redesigning the robustness testing process. We have now included a comprehensive description of this process in the methods section and presented a detailed analysis of the results in a new subsection.

 

Expanded the discussion to include a thorough comparison with similar studies, highlighting the unique contributions and distinctions of our work in the context of existing literature.

 

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, depth, and overall quality of our manuscript. We have also taken great care to ensure that all data and analysis processes are transparent and reproducible, as suggested by the reviewers.

 

Enclosed with this letter, please find the revised manuscript, a response to reviewers, and a marked-up copy of the manuscript indicating the changes made. We appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our work to Sustainability and are hopeful for a positive evaluation.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After revisions, the current version is acceptable after a language check.