Integrating Perishables into Closed-Loop Supply Chains: A Comprehensive Review

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback and insightful comments have contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Please find our detailed responses below, with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in Yellow in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: The topic of the paper is interesting. I think that the authors should consider first presenting the methodology through which the papers included in the review have been selected and then provide the criteria used for grouping them and analyzing them.

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment. Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript to address your suggestion. We have moved the methodology section to be presented first, and we have also improved and expanded the methodology section to include all required details and information. The associated revised part can be seen from lines 152 to 229. This revised section now comprehensively covers the methodology through which the papers included in the review have been selected, as well as the criteria used for grouping and analyzing them.

Comments 2: In the current form, the paper is rather chaotic. There is a lot of information provided using bullet-points. It would be preferable to discuss the issued using phases and a critical approach rather than using a list of items. Please add a critical approach when discussing the various selected papers. 

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Specifically, we have eliminated all bullet points throughout the entire article and have rewritten the sections to discuss the issues using phases and a more critical approach, as you recommended. We have made every effort to ensure that the revised manuscript provides a coherent and critical discussion.

Comments 3: The information in Table 1 is hard to understand. The lines and/or the columns have no name, so besides the identification of the eight key processes, which are in first column, the remainder of the columns are hard to read without a proper explanation and/or name. Please add the information either in the table or in the main body of the paper.

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have added an explanation regarding Table 1 in the main body of the text, specifically in lines 256 to 261, to improve clarity. This explanation provides the necessary context and names for the columns and lines, making the table easier to understand.

Comments 4: Also, the paper presents a series of information through the use of bullet-points. Please try to systemize the information in another manner. 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have eliminated all bullet points throughout the manuscript. We have revised the content to present the information in a more systemized and coherent manner, ensuring that the discussion flows smoothly and logically without relying on bullet points.

Comments 5: Furthermore, for the information in rows 334-352, please provide references for each of the types of applications provided. Even in this case, please try to present the information without using so many bullet points.

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have addressed your suggestion by not only eliminating the bullet points but also by providing references for each type of application mentioned. The revised section starts from row 625 to 630 in the revised version,

Comments 6: The observation related to the bullet-points applies even to rows 358-369. Also, it is not clear the importance of the information provided in this row. Please try to put more in the context the information you are provided in the paper.

Response 6: Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address your concerns by presenting the information in a manner that aligns with your recommendations. The revised content starts from lines 632 to 666. Additionally, to further improve the quality and clarity of the review, we have added an exclusive section 4.6. titled " Integration of applications, case locations, modeling approaches, and solution methods." This new section aims to provide a more coherent and contextualized discussion of the information, enhancing the overall quality of the paper.

Comments 7: Please add references for the list provided in rows 416-435. 

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have added the required references to the list, as you suggested. In the revised version, this information is located in rows 785 to 791.

Comments 8: Please remove Figure 3 if it does not belong to the authors of the present paper. 

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. We have removed Figure 3 as you suggested. Instead, we have explained the concept of the figure in rows 834 to 836 in the revised version.

Comments 9: References should be formatted as required by the journal. e.g. "Soyster first addressed uncertainty within a convex set for linear optimization [78]" should be "Soyster [78] first addressed uncertainty within a convex set for linear optimization".

Response 9: Thank you for pointing out this formatting issue. Accordingly, we have revised and checked the manuscript for similar errors and corrected them to ensure that all references are formatted as required by the journal.

Comments 10: There are two sections numbered as "6".

Response 10: Thank you for your detailed attention to this matter. We have corrected this issue and ensured that the sections are properly numbered in the revised manuscript.

Comments 11: Chapter 5 provides a bibliometric analysis rather than a literature review as expected. There are a lot of graphics and figures little discussed in the paper. The authors should focus on the main reasons the results are as presented in tables and figures - please consider other bibliometric papers when modifying this part of the paper.

Response 11: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have thoroughly revised Chapter 5, which is now Chapter 6 in the revised version, to address your concerns. Specifically, we have added a new section, 6.2, titled "Current research on CLSCs for perishable products." This section provides a detailed literature review, discussing key studies and their contributions to the field. Additionally, we have improved the discussion around the graphics and figures, focusing on the main reasons behind the results presented in the tables and figures.

In the new Section 6.2, we explore various aspects of current research on closed-loop supply chains for perishable products, emphasizing their unique challenges and management strategies. We critically analyze methodologies, solution approaches, and applications within different industries, highlighting trends and identifying research gaps. This comprehensive review aligns with the recommendations of other bibliometric papers, ensuring a balanced and thorough examination of the literature. We believe these revisions enhance the clarity and depth of the discussion, providing a more robust and informative review of the topic.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback and insightful comments have contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Please find our detailed responses below, with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in Bright Green in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: The image resolution needs to be improved, and the sentences in the image need to be aligned to improve readability

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made some efforts to improve the image resolution and align the sentences within the images to enhance readability. Additionally, the original image outputs from the software are submitted as supplementary material for the journal. The journal may choose to use these original images instead of the ones included in the manuscript to avoid any reduction in quality when imported into MS Word.

Comments 2: In the literature review part, it is thorough, but some chapters are too dense, so it is necessary to decompose lengthy paragraphs

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have made efforts to address this issue throughout the entire article. This revision aims to enhance readability and ensure that the information is presented in a more digestible manner.

Comments 3: In the part of Research Gaps and future agendas, you can cite the latest literature to emphasize the importance of community participation and education, such as DOI: 10.3390/su151411124.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have incorporated the latest literature to emphasize the importance of community participation and education in the section on Research Gaps and Future Agendas. You can find this revision in lines 1251 to 1259.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback and insightful comments have contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Please find our detailed responses below, with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in Turquoise in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: The introduction states in general terms that the design and management of SC for perishable goods is complex, but it does not address specific issues or provide detailed examples of these complexities.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the introduction to provide the requested information, addressing specific issues and providing detailed examples of the complexities involved in the design and management of supply chains for perishable goods. In the revised version, this is addressed in lines 44 to 70.

Comments 2: Section II jumps between different topics without clear transitions, making it difficult to follow the logical sequence.

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. Accordingly, we have provided an exclusive explanation and added Section 1.1, titled "Paper Structure," to give a clear idea and improve clarification for the reader.

In Section 1.1, we outline the hierarchical structure of the paper to ensure a comprehensive and systematic exploration of the integration of perishable products into closed-loop supply chains. This section provides a roadmap for the reader, detailing the content and organization of each subsequent section. By clearly delineating the methodology, theoretical foundations, analysis, and discussions, we aim to enhance the logical flow and coherence of the paper. We believe these revisions significantly improve the readability and structure of the manuscript.

Comments 3: Quotations are poorly integrated into the text, often appearing as afterthoughts rather than supporting evidence.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have made significant efforts to improve the integration of quotations in the manuscript. You can find examples of these revisions in lines 904 to 953 and 963 to 994. These changes ensure that quotations are seamlessly incorporated as supporting evidence, enhancing the overall coherence and argumentation of the text.

Comments 4: Key concepts such as stability parameters and objective functions are introduced but not explored in depth.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made extensive revisions to delve deeper into these key concepts for a more detailed exploration of these key concepts. The revised text explains their significance and application within the context of CLSC for perishables, illustrating their roles in achieving a resilient and sustainable supply chain.

The revisions regarding stability parameters can be seen in lines 763 to 784, and for objective functions from lines 567 to 620. These sections now provide a more thorough and detailed exploration, enhancing the depth and clarity of the manuscript.

Comments 5: Separately, the authors talk about the applications and location of the cases, as well as modeling approaches and solution methods. But these sections are not related to each other. It would be interesting to look at the connection of technicians by industry.

Response 5:  Thank you for this great idea. Accordingly, we have provided an exclusive section 4.6., titled "Integration of Applications, Case Locations, Modeling Approaches, and Solution Methods," to address your concern. We believe this section adds significant value to our paper.

In Section 4.6, we comprehensively explore the interplay between different modeling approaches, solution methods, and their applications across various industries and geographic locations. This section highlights how specific modeling techniques and solution methods are applied in different industrial contexts, emphasizing the importance of tailored approaches to address unique challenges. For example, we discuss how MILP is extensively used in the automotive industry due to its flexibility in handling complex optimization problems, while stochastic programming is crucial for managing high levels of uncertainty in the food products and pharmaceuticals industries. By integrating these elements, we provide a more holistic understanding of how various techniques are applied across industries, thereby enhancing the practical relevance and applicability of our review.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion, which has undoubtedly strengthened the coherence and depth of our paper.

Comments 6: It would be helpful in the article to provide examples of how different modeling approaches deal with uncertainty, with case studies or real-world examples.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have provided some examples to improve the paper as you recommended. You can find this information in lines 792 to 816 in the revised manuscript. These examples illustrate how different modeling approaches effectively deal with uncertainty, supported by case studies and real-world scenarios, thereby enhancing the practical relevance and depth of our discussion.

Comments 7: The review in Section VI presents the articles and their classification but lacks an in-depth critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies and their practical implications.

Response 7: Thank you for your insightful comment. To address this, we have created a new section titled "6.3. Detailed evaluation of methodology" that specifically addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies used in our review. Since our research is a review paper, we focused on identifying and presenting research gaps and future research agendas rather than practical implications. This new section provides a critical analysis, offering a more comprehensive evaluation of the methodologies discussed and enhancing the overall depth of our review.