Cascade Failure-Based Identification and Resilience of Critical Nodes in Automotive Supply Chain Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the impact of cascade failure on the destructive resistance of automotive supply chain network, and takes the Tesla as an example. I have the following questions:

1. Please further show the contributions of this paper. Is that just providing an improved method for identifying key nodes?

2. I suggest authors focus on an abstract model in Part 2, rather than directly targeting the specific scenario of Tesla.

3. In Eq.(4), Is the symbol “ec” a number or a vector? Please clarify it.

4. Is Part 3.3 original work by the author? If not, please further clarify.

5. Please explain the difference between node resilience and overall network resilience, and further clarify the practical significance of this study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the resilience of Tesla's automotive supply chain. This is a very interesting research topic that can provide valuable insights into supply chain risk management methods. Here are some of my suggestions:

1. The number of keywords is insufficient. Please add more accurate keywords.

2. Lines 46-47, "still relatively few," is not a good narrative style. After a brief summary, the author only lists some references. Besides "focus on supply chain risk-influencing factors," how are these studies related to the manuscript? What are the differences in research content, methods, and subjects? What are the distinctions and advantages compared to previous studies? Please provide more commentary, not just a simple statement of what was studied. Clarify the logic and highlight the innovation in the manuscript.

3. Lines 66-90, the author presents some research methods, but what differentiates these methods from the one in this paper? Is it merely because "most of today's key node identification methods have low resolution and poor ability to identify key nodes in the network"? Each method has its advantages and limitations. Comparing the various methods with the one used in the manuscript in terms of calculation speed, accuracy, and reliability would be more convincing.

4. Lines 99-100, "the experimental results show the superiority of the proposed I-K-shell method," should not include results in the introduction. Instead, emphasize the significance and prospects of the research.

5. Lines 104-105, why use Tesla as an example for the study? What are the differences compared to other vehicle models? Which indicators might change when constructing the computational model? Necessary details for the model construction should be provided.

6. Lines 119-120, as an international journal, some references should include their sources, such as "Overview of China's New Energy Vehicle Industry in 2022.”

7. Lines 140-141, the data source should be more clearly explained. Did all data come solely from the report's raw data? Was any data filtered or redundant data removed? Add some explanations about Gephi software. Moreover, presenting the calculation results directly seems abrupt.

8. Check for formatting errors, such as lines 236-239.

9. Line 374, provides more analysis of the advantages, including but not limited to calculation accuracy, calculation time, and reliability.

10. The conclusion should be itemized and offer more interesting quantitative results.

11. Please discuss the limitations of the research, future prospects, and improvements for the next research method.

12. Please add more latest references and give the differences and advantages from previous studies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fair.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no any questions. I think the paper can be accepted. 

Author Response

I am honored to receive your recognition and thank you for your support and encouragement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Thank you for the author's revisions. All my concerned questions have been answered. After solving some minor issues, the manuscript can be accepted for publication: 1. Maybe my carelessness, I did not find the index number of reference [19] in the article. Please carefully check the other formats of the entire text. 2. There are many proprietary terms in the article, and the Nomenclature section can be added. 3. Some chart names are too long, such as Figures 4, 5, and 6, etc 4. The conclusion section is a bit long and can be simplified. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fair.

Author Response

Comments 1: Maybe my carelessness, I did not find the index number of reference [19] in the article. Please carefully check the other formats of the entire text. 

Response 1:Thank you for your response, I have received your recommendation. I sincerely apologize for mistakenly marking reference 19 due to my carelessness. It has now been rectified and is shown on line 193 of the article.

Comments 2: There are many proprietary terms in the article, and the Nomenclature section can be added. 

Response 2:Thank you for your response, I have received your recommendation. I will elucidate the terms cascade failure, power law distribution and scale-free by means of footnotes. Kindly refer to the revised manuscript for specific alterations.

Comments 3: Some chart names are too long, such as Figures 4, 5, and 6, etc 

Response 3:Thank you for your response, I have received your recommendation.I have simplified the chart name, please check the revised manuscript for specific changes.

Comments 4: The conclusion section is a bit long and can be simplified. 

Response 4:Thank you for your response, I have received your recommendation.I have simplified the conclusion section, please check the revised manuscript for specific changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf