Supply Chain Coordination of New Energy Vehicles under a Novel Shareholding Strategy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to propose a shareholding strategy incorporating industry-university-research (IUR) collaboration to enhance coordination in New Energy Vehicle (NEV) supply chains, addressing the limitations of traditional shareholding strategies and optimizing both enterprise strategies and government subsidies. The paper's subject is contemporary, interesting, and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the paper lacks some essential elements and the novelty is questionable. More detailed comments are provided below.

1.     The abstract is not written well. It lacks an adequate background of the problem and the motivation for the study. It is also unbalanced and mostly deals with the methodology while neglecting the obtained results and main conclusions.

2.     The literature review does not cover all aspects of the study. It mainly covers the problem, but not the methodology used in the study. Also, the provided literature review is scarce. It should be broadened with additional, more recent, studies from the area (e.g.):

-      Zhu, X., Liu, J., Gu, M., & Yang, C. (2024). Which is better? Business models of partial and cross-ownership in an NEV supply chain. Kybernetes, 53(4), 1306-1330.

-      Liu, L., Wang, Z., & Zhang, C. (2024). Design and selection of government regulations for vehicle supply chains: A Chinese perspective. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 191, 110162.

-      Wu, D., Zhang, Z., & Tu, Q. (2024). Research on decision optimization of new energy vehicle supply chain considering demand disruptions under dual credit policy. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 0-0.

3.     This study shares many similarities with the following paper „Zhu, X., Liu, J., Gu, M., & Yang, C. (2024). Which is better? Business models of partial and cross ownership in an NEV supply chain. Kybernetes, 53(4), 1306-1330.“, especially in terms of the methodology. What is novel in this study compared to the previous one?

4.     The connection between the methodology and the numerical studies is not well established. The authors should quote the equations presented within the methodology section in the application section to allow the reader to understand how the results are obtained.

5.     The notation is very extensive. The authors should check it to make sure they are not using the same symbols for different things. They should also check if they defined and explained all symbols used in the equations.

6.     What is the source of the input values for the numerical studies? Are those hypothetical values, simulated values, or real-life data?

7.     The paper does not have a discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature.

8.     The authors did not provide any managerial (practical) or theoretical implications of the paper. Who can use the results of this study and for what?

9.     The authors did not provide any limitations of the study.

10.  The future research directions are very weak. There should be at least 3-5 solid future research directions interesting to most of the Journal readers.

11. The English language should be improved. There are grammar, syntax, and style errors that should be addressed.

12.  Some technical issues should be addressed:

a)     There should be at least a couple of sentences between the headings of different levels (e.g. between section 3 and sub-section 3.1).

b)    All figures and tables present in the paper (even those in the appendix) must be mentioned somewhere in the main text.

c)     Figures 7a, 7b and 7c are disconnected and should thus be numbered independently (as figures 7, 8, and 9).

d)    Equations are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (provided template).

e)     References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated).

f)     Some references are not complete (they are missing important information such as volume, issue, or page numbers).

g)    References in the main text are not cited according to the Instructions for Authors (provided template). They should be cited as numbers in square brackets in the order of their appearance.

h)    Abbreviations/acronyms should be defined the first time they appear in each part of the paper (abstract, main text, etc.). Some abbreviations are not defined the first time they appear in the main text (e.g. “R&D”). Check the entire paper and define them all.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language should be improved. There are grammar, syntax, and style errors that should be addressed.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose a research in which they suggest a new way of coordinating the supply chain for the manufacture of new energy vehicles. Initially, they make an introduction in which they adequately explain the purpose of the study. Following this, they make an extensive review of the current literature.

 

Next, the authors make an exposition of the problem they are trying to solve and propose several scenarios, applying the method they have proposed to one of them and making comparisons with the others.

 

This is a well-conducted research in which the authors have used an adequate bibliography and have relied on the most recent works and solutions for the problem they pose. However, the quality of the paper could be improved in the following way:

 

- At least an assessment could be made of how other problems would affect the different proposals. For example, the lack of supplies, or the lack of personnel at specific times in the supply chain.

 

- "Future work" section should be added. In this way, this group, or other researchers could continue with the approach included in this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

I am extremely grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. After undergoing major revision, this paper has become highly deserving of publication.

1.     The abstract lacks the result, research gap, and contribution.

2.     In order to improve the organizational paper, it is essential to update its structure.

3.     It is required for authors to incorporate sensitive analysis into their work.

4.     In order to effectively implement their ideas, authors must incorporate managerial strategies.

 

5.     In the conclusion, it is imperative for authors to explicitly highlight how their research addresses the research questions and emphasizes the contributions it has made.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper needs to minor English editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore, I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is acceptable. Only minor issues are identified.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Authors addressed all of my comments.  Good luck!