Decision-Making Approach to Design a Sustainable Photovoltaic Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Market Share for Electric Vehicle Energy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is an extremely poor structure to the paper. There are numerous areas that require improvement:
1. The title is excessively lengthy.
2. The introduction is inadequately prepared. The introduction is prohibited from including figures, as well as bulleted achievements and innovations.
3. The APA style is not used to create the references.
4. The Problem Statement section must be presented prior to the research's accomplishments.
5. The problem statement is distinct from mathematical modeling; therefore, it must be written as a discrete section.
6. The Managerial Insights section is inadequately prepared due to its enumeration.
7. The Conclusion and Future Work section is also inadequately prepared due to the inclusion of numbering, etc.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #1 has been enclosed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a topic of interest to researchers in related fields, but some improvements are needed at this stage. My detailed comments are as follows:
This paper establishes a closed-loop supply chain model for photovoltaic (PV) systems, proposes a method to utilize some of the electrical energy required to charge electric vehicles through photovoltaic systems, and addresses strategic and tactical decisions using a two-stage approach. This is a topic of interest to researchers in related fields, but some improvements are needed at this stage. My detailed comments are as follows:
1 COULD THE AUTHOR PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE PROMETHEE II METHOD IN THIS ARTICLE TAKES MULTIPLE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF A PV POWER STATION?
2 To account for the uncertainty and randomness of photovoltaics, the authors can integrate scenario-based stochastic programming into the established model. See this article: DOI: 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2021.04510.
3 How does the multiobjective decision model in this article balance the trade-offs between various objectives?
4. Some of the formulas in the article are not labeled, please modify them.
5 In the future, the authors intend to provide more effective strategies for identifying suitable locations for solar power plants and other production centers, which can be referred to the Nash negotiation model proposed in the following article to maximize the profits of all participants. e.g.：DOI：org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123275
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
response to Reviewer #2 has been enclosed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
The paper's projective is to present a multi-objective optimization of a photovoltaic loop. The method was tested in an Iraqi city. The study compares the impact of several objective functions. A fuzzy model is used to assess the model’s sustainability.
Writing comments
This is not an easy-to-read manuscript. Perhaps several aims are mixed and the result I a confusing not mature manuscript. Some Figures seem to have been added only for decorative purposes.
It would be interesting to see data about the years 2022 and 2023 in Figures 2 and 3 to put in perspective the impact of the pandemics on these energy consumption parameters… just curious.
I like Table 1 as it synthesizes, in an organized manner, the results of the literature review.
According to the notation provided in the appendix, 𝑇𝐶𝐸𝐵𝑒𝑏𝑡 is the Cost of transferring separated glass from separation center e to glass recycling center b in time period t. And 𝑄𝐸𝐵𝑒𝑏𝑛𝑡 is the Flow of transferring recycled glass type n from separation center e to glass recycling center b in time period t.
Equations look unnecessarily complex. I suggest reviewing the use of these variables in expression (2), and maybe others too, because it does not look clear the formulation of these constraints. For instance, if there is only one separation center e, and only one recycling center b, then the threefold summation in (2) is not needed: instead of writing ΣΣΣ𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕𝒃𝒆 you should write. 𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕𝒃𝒆.
If, on the contrary, there are more than one e and more tan one b, I suspect the valid term is the product inside the summations ( ΣΣΣ 𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕𝒃𝒆 . 𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕 ) instead of the products of two summations: “+ ΣΣΣ𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕𝒃𝒆 . Σ𝑸𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒏𝒕 +”.
Please apply this review to all the expressions.
𝑇𝐶𝐸𝐵𝑒𝑏𝑡 = Cost of transferring separated glass from separation center e to glass recycling center b in time period t.
𝑄𝐸𝐵𝑒𝑏𝑛𝑡 = Flow of transferring recycled glass type n from separation center e to glass recycling center b in period t.
Final comments:
The manuscript is not mature and needs to be better structured. This manuscript needs to be improved to offer a clearer purpose of the study. I don’t think this manuscript is appropriate for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #3 has been enclosed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be published after the changes that are made in the paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much. We made all your comments completely.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you again.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
I insist, this document shows unnecessarily complex mathematic expressions. I suggest reviewing the use of these variables in expression (2), and maybe others too, because it does not look clear the formulation of these constraints. For instance, if there is only one separation center e, and only one recycling center b, then the multifold summation in (2) is not needed: instead of writing ΣΣΣ𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕𝒃𝒆 you should write. 𝑻𝑪𝑬𝑩𝒆𝒃𝒕𝒕𝒃𝒆.
If, on the contrary, there are more than one e, more than one b, more than one etc… then the multiple summation represents, as is suggested in the term index, a single variable. Take for example 𝑄𝐽𝐾𝑗𝑘𝑛𝑡 . Which you say is: “Flow of transferring wafer type n from wafers manufacturer j to cell manufacturer k in time period t.” If as your statement suggests, QJK represents the total flow of transferring water of any type n from any manufacturer j to any manufacturer cell j over the sum of all time periods t, then QJK is a single value representing all that. You do not need the summations.
Final comments:
The mat syntax used in the document is unnecessarily complex; if not wrong. I don’t understand the meaning of these expressions.
Author Response
you can see our response as enclosed file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sustainability journal reviewer(s):
We appreciate your comments and suggestions once again. We have implemented changes based on your feedback. We hope these changes meet with your positive approval.
In response to Reviewer #3: (Related changes highlighted in blue)
Comment #1: “Equation (3) as presented in the manuscript:
You could present it this way:
Apply this to all expressions in your paper when not needed. After applying this all over the document, it will be clearer.”
Our response: In accordance with your comment, we removed all upper limits from the formulas.
Comment #2:“There is an ugly inconsistency in using bold symbols. Equation (9) for example shows most variables and the word Minimize using bold. You must obligate the editor not to set bold where you do not intend it.”
Our response: We originally did not intend to use bold symbols. The reason for this mistake was due to a bug in the Word software where changes were not saved. Nonetheless, based on your comment, we have now corrected all bold symbols.
Thank you again for your time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
