A Novel Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Paint and Coating Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·      The research gaps and motivations of the study should be provided.

·      Contributions and novelties of the study should be stated.

·      Research methodology part should be expanded and the authors should add a novelty to the methodology part.

·      The authors should provide more information on the group and also they have to explain data collection process.

·      There is no explication on how the weights of DANP obtained. The authors should provide computational process and data of DANP method.

·      An illustrative Figure of the methodology should be given.

·      Sensitivity analysis should be conducted.

 

·      Managerial implications of the study should be explained.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your perceptive remarks. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript, “A Novel Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Paint and Coating Industry” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3186755). Consequently, we have implemented major revisions to the paper in accordance with the provided comments. Here is our detailed response, addressing each topic individually:

1. Regarding the research gaps, we recognize that the research gap was not adequately explained. The revision can be found in Lines 77-102.
2. Regarding the contribution and novelty, we have already elaborated on the contribution and novelty and the revision can be found in Lines 103-117.
3. Regarding the data collection process, we have already incorporated the process into the manuscript. These revisions can be found in Lines 257-264.
4. There are several steps in the calculation process, including the Dematel Process and the DANP process. This calculation has been added and can be found in sub-section 4.3 Exploring Cause-effect Influence Relations Among the Criteria and Sub-criteria Line 346 until 530, including its matrices from the calculation steps.
5. Regarding the methodology, we have already added the flowchart that will visually depict the methodology, outlining each step in the process in a more accessible format. This flowchart is located on Figure 2 Lines 271-272.
6. Regarding the sensitivity analysis, we have already conducted a sensitivity analysis by adjusting the primary weights for each of the seven experts individually, while maintaining equal weights for the other experts. The sensitivity analysis is located on Line 653.
7. Regarding managerial implications, we already provide three practical and managerial implications as mentioned in Lines 701-712.

I believe that these revisions significantly enhance the clarity and depth of the manuscript, and I trust that the updated version now addresses all of your concerns. I greatly appreciate your valuable input, which has helped to improve the overall quality and impact of the study. Please feel free to share any additional feedback you may have after reviewing the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your time and support.

 

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Yuri M. Zagloel, M.Eng.Sc.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Initially, I’d like to appraise such efforts and good work. However, it is regrettable that the study does not adequately address the intricate and significant nature of sustainability criteria, particularly social criteria, in terms of their explanation, categorization and measurement. So, although it is a very important topic it was poorly presented. in other words, it would have been more appropriate to frame the study as a form of review or a pilot study rather than a methodological approach.

Moreover, the authors stated that sustainable supplier selection extends traditional methodologies by incorporating sustainability criteria. This inclusion of industry-appropriate sustainability benchmarks, which are already established as standard, potentially diminishes the research's scientific contribution due to a lack of comprehensive justification for the measurement methods and a detailed analysis of each indicator's influence in addition to the studied interrelation or correlation analysis.

For further enhancements here are some points that degraded such a good potential due to weak presentation.

 

Research background section
Line	Comment
106	systematic literature Review mentioned isn't clear e.g. (key words used, Data-base used and inclusion and exclusion criteria). although it is the core of the research or of importance to determine preliminary criteria.
106	Table 1 can be further enhanced, for example include ( what industry, selection approach, model used…etc.). It also doesn’t mention reference 17 which has 15 different sub-criteria as stated by the writers.
125	Mentioned each study technique regardless of the result or the industry it is used in, the results of some or a proper comparison as mentioned only very briefly in one line 128.
Research Methodology section
	The methodology lacks a clear visual representation of the methodology, such as a flowchart or pseudocode. This omission makes it difficult to follow the step-by-step progression of the research process.
	Criteria assessed and weighed by DANP and Influence Relation Network lack a comprehensive introduction and explanation prior to the presentation of results. The reliance on numerical correlations without adequate contextualization weakens the study's impact, given that the criteria in question are standard and necessitate detailed elucidation, measurements, and justification for their selection even prior to the FGD or how they reached the focus group discussion in the first place.
	The explanation of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method is adequately articulated; however, the clarity regarding its application remains ambiguous. It would be beneficial to elucidate the results of the FGD by categorizing the criteria or by presenting a straightforward graphical representation. Additionally, providing an illustrative example, such as detailing a question from the initial Delphi round concerning payment terms, or explicating the rationale for including payment terms in the questionnaire, would enhance the comprehensibility of the FGD's practical implementation.
348	Figure 6 is labeled as “sustainable supplier selection model” while it is explained as a criteria map in line 348 which further complexes the criteria selection and further shows the need for a clearer visualization of the methodology or an elucidation of these criteria.
399	While the study employs the INRM method for correlation analysis, it lacks a clear presentation of the specific metrics or indicators used to assess the sustainability criteria. Incorporating a more detailed description of these measurement tools would provide a stronger foundation for interpreting the correlation results and enhancing the overall research contribution. For instance, the sub-criteria of health and safety could be quantified using metrics such as the number of hours spent in hazardous areas.
There are also minor proofreading oversights as in line 16 where the writer inadvertently focuses solely on economic factors, neglecting to differentiate between the sub-categories of environmental and social criteria Furthermore, in line 50, the text erroneously refers to a "prior study" when, in fact, two studies are cited, thereby necessitating the plural form "prior studies."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language should be revisited 

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your perceptive remarks. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript, “A Novel Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Paint and Coating Industry” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3186755). Your suggestion to potentially frame the study as a review or pilot study rather than a methodological approach is valuable, and I will take this into serious consideration for future revisions and enhancements. Consequently, we have implemented major revisions to the paper in accordance with the provided comments. The revisions made to the text are clearly indicated. Here is our detailed response, addressing each topic individually:

1. Regarding the systematic literature review, I recognize that the process was not adequately explained. As part of the revision, the revision include: A detailed explanation of the keywords used for the search, the specific databases consulted, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, to enhance transparency and ensure that the research foundation is clear to readers. This revision can be found in Line 121-136 and Line 161-180.
2. Regarding Table 1, I understand your point about the need for further enhancement, particularly by including more comprehensive details such as the specific industry, the selection approach, and the model used. We have already incorporated the selection approach into the previously mentioned table. However,we renamed this table as Table 2 and located it on Line 184. These additions will help provide more context and clarity, making the table more informative and aligned with the scope of the study. We also have already incorporated the references 1 which contains 16 different sub-criteria in this table.
3. In response to your comments regarding the discussion of study techniques, I understand that the comparison of different techniques was not adequately detailed. However, we have already revised the section to include a more comprehensive comparison of each study technique. The comparison of different techniques were described in Line 201-227, Line 229-232, and Line 247-253.
4. Regarding the methodology, we have already add the flowchart that will visually depict the methodology, outlining each step in the process in a more accessible format. This flowchart is located on Figure 2 Line 271-272.
5. Regarding your concern about the lack of a comprehensive introduction and explanation of the criteria assessed by the DANP (Decision-Making and Trial Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process) and Influence Relation Network, I agree that a more detailed elucidation of the sub-criteria is essential for contextualizing the findings. Each sub-criterion has been selected for its relevance and importance in supplier selection, as they collectively form a holistic approach to evaluating suppliers across economic, environmental, and social criteria. The justification is located on Line 182.
6. In response to your suggestion to enhance the clarity of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) results, I have categorized the sub-criteria for better organization and understanding. Line 312-321 describes the categorization.
7. Regarding Figure 6 (renamed as Figure 8) it is a interrelationships model that represents the sustainable supplier selection sub-criteria and its interrelationships. The analysis of the most influential sub-criteria and the most significant sub-criteria were elucidate on Line 560-651.
8. Regarding INRM, we already provide the specific metrics as a measurement (Tables 4-6). The INRM is a result of the Dematel process that we explained in Line 351-413.
9. We also already revised Line 16 and described our findings (Lines 13-17) and revised “prior study” into “ “prior studies” (Line 52).

I believe that these revisions significantly enhance the clarity and depth of the manuscript, and I trust that the updated version now addresses all of your concerns. I greatly appreciate your valuable input, which has helped to improve the overall quality and impact of the study. Please feel free to share any additional feedback you may have after reviewing the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your time and support.

 

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Yuri M. Zagloel, M.Eng.Sc.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposed a novel model for sustainable supplier selection in the paint and coating industry. Generally, this paper should be improved based on the following aspects:

(1) The quality of figures is quite low, such as Figure 1 to Figure 3.

(2) The calculation process of this novel model is not clear and it not explained clearly. What's the novelty of this model?

(3) Calculation results of this paper should be compared with previous models.

(4) The number of figure is too small. For an academic paper, generally, there should be around 15 figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our gratitude to you for your perceptive remarks. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript, “A Novel Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Paint and Coating Industry” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3186755). Consequently, we have implemented many modifications to the paper in accordance with the provided comments. The modifications made to the text are clearly indicated. Here is our detailed response, addressing each topic individually:

1. The quality of Figures 1 to 7 is already improved
2. There are several steps in the calculation process, including the Dematel Process and the DANP process. This calculation has been added and can be found in sub-section 4.3 Exploring Cause-effect Influence Relations Among the Criteria and Sub-criteria Line 346 until 530, including its matrices from the calculation steps. In terms of novelty, this research introduces a new and innovative approach that has not been widely discussed before, particularly in the context of identifying the sustainable supplier selection sub-criteria and analyzing its interrelationship in the paints and coatings industry. The novelty has been stated in Line 112 until 117.
3. We compare several results with previous models. The comparison has been discussed in Line 540-541, Line 571-572, and Line 644-646.
4. We add two figures to our manuscript: Figure 1. Distribution of paper published SSS by year from 2012 until 2021 and Figure 2. Research methodology. We apologize that we can not make it until 15 figures because of the significant increases in our number of tables and the limitation of the number of pages.

 

I believe that these revisions significantly enhance the clarity and depth of the manuscript, and I trust that the updated version now addresses all of your concerns. I greatly appreciate your valuable input, which has helped to improve the overall quality and impact of the study. Please feel free to share any additional feedback you may have after reviewing the revised manuscript. We're looking forward to hearing from you.

 

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Yuri M. Zagloel, M.Eng.Sc.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should add a novelty to the methodolpgy instead of employing the existing merhods.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the need for a novel approach in the methodology. We are pleased to inform you that we have incorporated a new hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method into the manuscript, specifically the combination of DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP) and MARCOS. This integration represents a novel contribution to supplier ranking in our study. We have stated the novelty in Lines 283-288, 292-300, and an additional phase in methodology in Lines 310-313 and in Figure 2. However, the data collection for the MARCOS method has been explained in sub-section 3.3 in Lines 364-371.

We believe that this hybrid approach adds significant novelty to the study and strengthens the methodology by providing a more comprehensive and precise decision-making framework. We hope that this enhancement meets your expectations, and we appreciate your insightful feedback throughout the review process.

 

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Yuri M. Zagloel, M.Eng.Sc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

 

Review Response

Although the comments have been adequately addressed, some aspects still necessitate further attention, improved formatting, and comprehensive proofreading. Aside from these areas, your further  attention to each comment is highly appreciated.

 

So, for further enhancement of the research and ensure a more comprehensive and impactful presentation of the newly incorporated revisions, I recommend the following improvements:

 

Research background section
Line	Comment
182	While the content of Table 2 has been significantly enhanced with the introduction of new aspects for each reference, it remains unclear whether the column sub-criteria represent the specific criteria selected for the present study or the sub-criteria incorporated by the referenced studies. If the latter is the case, it is essential to correctly mention each reference sub-criteria. For instance, reference 18, which includes 11 distinct sub-criteria, should be listed 11 times to accurately reflect the full scope of the sub-criteria chosen. Similarly, reference 1, with 16 sub-criteria, and only mentioned twice. Furthermore, the formatting of Table 2 should be standardized to align with the overall presentation of the research, ensuring consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript and enhancing visual representation.
Research methodology section
Line	Comment
312	While the inclusion of a flowchart and additional paragraphs has significantly improved the presentation of the methodology and focus group discussion, but further clarification is needed regarding the specific criteria assessed and questions used in the focus group. The current listing in line 312 does not adequately convey how these criteria were derived or whether they were directly identified through the focus group process or adapted from existing literature.
356	The manuscript contains minor formatting issues that could be addressed to enhance readability. Specifically, in line 356, the space between the matrix and the subsequent lines is insufficient, leading to visual crowding and potential confusion for readers. The explanation of the "n" variable is cramped above the following paragraph, further hindering clarity. Similar formatting issues are evident in line 407.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the comments have been adequately addressed, some aspects still necessitate further attention, improved formatting, and comprehensive proofreading. Aside from these areas, your further attention to each comment is highly appreciated.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for acknowledging that the comments have been adequately addressed. I appreciate your additional suggestions to further enhance the quality and presentation of the research.

I will promptly implement the recommended improvements to ensure a more comprehensive and impactful presentation of the revisions. Specifically, we made the following adjustments:

1. Clarification of Sub-Criteria in Table 2: We already explained that the sub-criteria used in the referenced studies were selected for the present study in Lines 205-211. In the case of referenced studies for sub-criteria such as reference 18 and the other references, it has been represented in the Table 2. The format of the Table 2 has been standardized.
2. Clarification of Criteria and Focus Group Questions: We have made further improvements to the methodology section, specifically regarding the questions used during the focus group discussion (Lines 314-324). In particular, we have provided additional explanation on how the sub-criteria were identified (Lines 325-326).
3. Spacing and Visual Clarity: We have adjusted the formatting for all matrices and equation, ensuring that there is sufficient space between the matrix and the subsequent lines to avoid visual crowding.

We will also conduct a proofreading to further improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you again for your insightful suggestions and continued guidance. I look forward to addressing these areas to ensure the manuscript meets the highest standards.

 

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Yuri M. Zagloel, M.Eng.Sc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. However, we made several adjustments in the manuscript. The adjustments including:

1. Clarification of Sub-Criteria in Table 2: We already explained that the sub-criteria used in the referenced studies were selected for the present study in Lines 205-211. In the case of referenced studies for sub-criteria such as reference 18 and the other references, it has been represented in the Table 2. The format of the Table 2 has been standardized.
2. Clarification of Criteria and Focus Group Questions: We have made further improvements to the methodology section, specifically regarding the questions used during the focus group discussion (Lines 314-324). In particular, we have provided additional explanation on how the sub-criteria were identified (Lines 325-326).
3. Spacing and Visual Clarity: We have adjusted the formatting for all matrices and equation, ensuring that there is sufficient space between the matrix and the subsequent lines to avoid visual crowding. 
4. Novel Approach in the Methodology: We have incorporated a new hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method into the manuscript, specifically the combination of DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP) and MARCOS. This integration represents a novel contribution to supplier ranking in our study. We have stated the novelty in Lines 283-288, 292-300, and an additional phase in methodology in Lines 310-313 and in Figure 2. However, the data collection for the MARCOS method has been explained in sub-section 3.3 in Lines 364-371.

We will also conduct a proofreading to further improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Thank you again for your continued guidance. I look forward to addressing these areas to ensure the manuscript meets the highest standards.

 

Best Regards,

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Yuri M. Zagloel, M.Eng.Sc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The required revisions are performed.