A Novel Parts-to-Picker System with Buffer Racks and Access Racks in Flexible Warehousing Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is clear-sighted and may be useful for practical application. Below, I have outlined my suggestions that, in my opinion, could be helpful in improving the article:
Chapter 1:
Line 26: Instead of: inventory quality - Ithink it's better: inventory performance.
Before the description of the structure of the paper, you need to clearly define the goal of your research.
Chapter 2:
„Related research“ is commendable for its thoroughness and comprehensiveness.
Chapter 3:
You propose to take advantage of already existing systems. It is necessary to describe more clearly what you are trying to achieve with your proposed solution, what your goal is and how you will measure that goal. I think it would be useful to add a comparative analysis (table) with the advantages and disadvantages of the basic systems you integrate.
Line 196: SBS/RS - please state the meaning of this abbreviation beforehand (this applies to all the abbreviations used in the paper).
Line 203: Thirdly, different-unit-size rack design is discussed in Section 3.3. Is this a new, proposed rack design? If so, then it should be emphasized more clearly.
Chapter 3.3:
You describe the rack design for different units sizes - does Fig. 7 represent your new design? If yes, it should be emphasized and written more clearly.
Fig. 7: Please explain on what basis you suggested that the total space be divided in this way?
Lines 262-264: Why not specify a third dimension (depth)?
Lines 270-271: ... while the other one has 105 units.How did you get this value, is this the capacity for Fig. 8?
Chapter 4:
In my opinion, at the beginning, it is necessary to emphasize framework of your numerical experiment: the novel warehouse system (e.g. chapter, figure), which indicators you are measuring and which program you are using.
Chapter 5:
To enhance this section further, consider emphasizing the specific contributions of the research to the existing literature and practical applicability.
References to the literature in the text should be corrected in accordance with the instructions for the authors of this journal.
I hope these suggestions are helpful in enhancing the quality of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article identifies the challenges in the development of the logistics industry, offering a detailed summary and synthesis of relevant research. It proposes an innovative part-to-picker approach, and substantiates its feasibility and efficiency in flexible warehousing systems through comprehensive numerical experiments, providing detailed test results.
In Section 3.2，While the paper references Rehman (2023) regarding the AMR's autonomous navigation, it would be beneficial to include a brief summary or citation of the relevant information from that source. This ensures transparency and allows readers to trace the origin of the information.
In addition，the clarity of some figures needs to be improved, such as the curves in Figure 14 to Figure 16, where the colors are too faint, and the details are not highlighted enough.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish expression can be improved appropriately.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Please be advised for the following:
1. The abstract must be rewritten in a scientific manner
2. Your Methodology is not clear, please clarify it.
3. All the figures must be enhanced " all are not clear"
4. The equations that you are using must be defined
5. Any figure or table must be defined and covered before the figure or the table itself " please check"
6. the conclusion is not enough for the obtained results!!!!!
7. all the paper must be checked for English and grammar mistakes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAll the paper must be checked for grammar mistakes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNeither the aim nor the actual contribution of the paper is mentioned in the article (nor in the abstract). The topic is interesting. The paper is prepared at a good level. However, the focus and treatment of the topic are not suitable for publication in the journal. The article does not contain any information on sustainability or sustainable development. There is no explicit reference in the article to the importance or relevance of the solution mentioned to the sustainability of storage, logistics, or sustainable development.
The paper does not include the main research question or research problem. I recommend that the authors add the main question, the main problem, to the article. The paper does not contain an aim, it is advisable to state the aim of the article in the abstract.
I consider the topic to be original and relevant in the field. It would be appropriate for publication in this journal to add a chapter or part in a paper on how the solutions presented to support or contribute to sustainability or sustainable development. I recommend linking the issue of automated operations or processes related to warehousing or selected logistics processes to sustainable manufacturing, sustainable logistics, or green manufacturing. I think that the paper complements existing publications in this area. The article is concrete and applicable. Overall, it lacks the stated contribution that would be generalized.
The contribution of the article is certainly the analysis and elaborated overview in chapter 2 Related research and application or specific solution.
Regarding the methodology, the paper does not include a chapter or section Methodology. I recommend adding a Methodology chapter or section to the paper. A given type of article (the treatment of a specific application in the article) does not require the wording of the hypotheses, but it would be useful to add the assumptions you expected from the application or comparison of solutions.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented. The authors could have been more specific in their review of the findings and explicit about the aim of the article or the goal of addressing the problem. Because the main question or main problem was not stated in the article, it is not possible to determine whether the conclusions are consistent with the main question or main problem.
The references are appropriate.
Regarding tables and figures, perhaps it would be more appropriate to explain the pictures in more detail.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper contains minimal inaccuracies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your fine work
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the authors have largely edited the article. They have eliminated previous shortcomings or inaccuracies. Based on the editing, I think the article is suitable for publication in this journal.
