Study on the Selection of Recycling Strategies for the Echelon Utilization of Electric Vehicle Batteries under the Carbon Trading Policy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe following are my comments on the manuscript:
1. Title: If possible, simplify the title.
2. Abstract: The first two lines are quite confusing. Also, the problem has not been well-stressed. Overall, the abstract can be improved by mentioning the purpose of the study, methodology used, results, and implications.
3. Introduction: The first paragraph looks incoherent. The first three lines are different to each other. Overall, the introduction in its present form fails to strengthen the theoretical foundation for the study. Avoid redundant data. What are EVBs and EVM? Many typo errors are also there.
4. Literature review: Check the flow of information. Consider writing coherently. This section begins with the remanufacturing process. Why is it needed? Remanufacturing and recycling are different processes. Stick to the title of the manuscript. What is CLSC? When an abbreviation is introduced, it must be mentioned in the first instance. Also, consistency in using the abbreviations must be maintained. For lines 172 – 174, provide references. Keep important information and delete repetitive details.
5. Problem description: Again, what is BS and EVM? Improve the clarity of Fig. 1.
6. The model: Provide references for the developed hypotheses and equations.
7. Numerical experiments: Check figure number as fig. 1 is already mentioned in the problem description section. Ensure the figures provided are discussed in detail.
8. Conclusions and management insights: Sections 5 and 5.1 are repetitive content. Managerial insights look vague. Provide practical suggestions.
9. References: Although recent articles have been referenced, the theoretical foundation of the study is currently weak. Do refer to the following articles to enhance the structure of the manuscript.
· A systematic review of sustainable business models: Opportunities, challenges, and future research directions
· A causal sustainable evaluation of barriers to remanufacturing: an emerging economy perspective
· An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach for evaluating e-waste mitigation strategies
· Mitigating barriers to adopting electric vehicles in an emerging economy context
Overall, the topic covered in this manuscript is of significant importance, it lacks a strong theoretical foundation and also the structure of the manuscript is weak. Thus, there is sufficient room for improvement also. Hence, I recommend a major revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper “Study on the Selection of Recycling Strategies for the Echelon Utilization of Electric Vehicle Batteries under the Carbon Trading Policy” brings scientific innovation. It was well conducted and based on current literature and on the proposed subject. The arguments were well developed. It presents considerations that need to be reviewed, such as the lack of description of some acronyms in the text and the lack of description of some figures before showing them. The following considerations are in place:
1. The abstract should contain information about the methodology used in the study.
2. Page 1, line 40. The acronym EVB should be written out in full when mentioned for the first time.
3. Page 1. Line 40-41. In “the first batch of EVBs entering the market has entered the "retirement" period”, I suggest including the period (year) of these first batches.
4. Page 1, line 42. Missing a period after the reference in “...(Vaughan, 2019). Facing...”
5. Page 2. Line 54. No period before the references: “...Neutral" goal (Malinauskaite et al., 2021; Schultmann et al., 2003).”
6. Page 2, line 55. What is “Trapezoidal Utilization”? Make the information clearer in the text.
7. Page 2, line 56-57. What is “echelon utilization”? Make the information clear in the text.
8. Page 2. Line 67: Write the acronym EVM in full.
9. Page 2, line 71: What is NIO?
10. Page 3, line 126: The acronym CLSC was used for the first time here on this line, so its meaning should be written in full next to the acronym: closed-loop supply chain (CLSC)
11. Page 4, line 235: The acronym BS was used for the first time, so its meaning should be written in full next to the acronym
12. Page 5, line 240. I suggest changing the title “2. Problem description” by “2. Methodology”
13. Page 8, line 310. I suggest including a reference to “Stackelberg game is used to analyze the decision-making process”
14. Pages 13,14,15, 16: Figures 1-11: I suggest increasing the font size of the captions and the font size of the graph axis titles. Figures 7-9 should be larger, as they are too small.
15. Page 13. Figure 2 should be mentioned (discussed) in the text before showing it.
16. Page 15. Figures 8 and 9 should be mentioned in the text before showing them. Figure 8 was not mentioned in the text.
17. Page 16. Figure 11 should be mentioned (discussed) in the text before showing it.
18. From page 15-17, the text must be aligned to the right.
19. Page 26. The rules on how references should be written should be removed from the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the comments given. Hence, I recommend the possible publication of the manuscript.
