Eco-Design in Manufacturing or Remanufacturing? The Sustainable Options in a Closed-Loop Supply Chain with Outsourcing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The article is very interesting from the theoretical, methodological and practical points of view.
It can be useful for representatives of government, scientific and educational institutions, as well as specialists in circular economy, green logistics, sustainable management of supply chains, greening of logistics activities of business entities, waste management, environmental management, etc.
Response: Thank you for your encouragements on the manuscript! We confirm that all your encouragements and comments are valued in the revision process. Below we detail how we changed the paper in response to your comments and suggestions.
To improve the content and quality of the article, it is worth paying attention to some points.
- In the Abstract, it would be desirable to disclose in more detail the methodology, scientific novelty of the obtained research results, and practical recommendations.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have revised the Abstract and disclosed in more detail the methodology, scientific novelty of the obtained research results, and practical recommendations. (See, lines 9-35).
It would be desirable to improve the content of the List of keywords. That is, it is necessary to make changes to the list and replace some keywords, for example, with the following: circular economy, greening of logistics activities, waste management, the concept of clean production, extended producer responsibility, ecological principles, paradigm, theoretical models, economic and mathematical tools.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have added two keywords of “waste management”, “circular economy”. (See, Lines 39 and 40)
In the “Introduction” section, it would be desirable to disclose the purpose of the research in more detail.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have disclosed the purpose of the research in more detail. (see, Lines 91-111)
In the article, it would be desirable to more thoroughly describe the research methods that the authors used in the article.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have changed [original] “3. Model formulation” into [now] “3. Methods”. In this section, we intend to make more thoroughly describe the research methods (see, lines 194-288).
It would be desirable to finalize the “Conclusion” section in the article.
First, it would be expedient to state the received scientific and methodological provisions and practical results. The content of the article would be improved if the authors provided recommendations for the development of a strategy or concept of extended producer responsibility in the context of the circular economy.
In addition, it would be desirable to substantiate a sustainable model of a closed supply chain on the basis of outsourcing. This can become a direction of further research.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have revised the Conclusion and provided recommendations for the circular economy (see, lines 544-555). In addition, following your suggestions, we have took substantiating a sustainable model of a closed supply chain on the basis of outsourcing as a direction of further research. (see, lines 581-582)
And, secondly, it was desirable to clearly outline the prospects for further research on the chosen topic.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have made a detailed discussion for the further researches. (see, lines 567-582).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article explores the issue of Eco-Design for OEMs in the closed-loop supply chain, particularly with regard to manufacturing and remanufacturing considerations. Based on practical observation, this paper puts forward two theoretical models to understand this problem and draws some meaningful conclusions. However, this article needs to be improved in some aspects：
1. Conclusion should be expanded as it doesn’t refer to the findings. Additionally, the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research should be clearly outlined.
2. In Line 338, ‘we do not consider the possible regulations from governments and environmental groups’, What is the rationale behind not considering them? It is essential for authors to ensure experimental compliance.
3. The Analysis and insights section , could the differences and connections between the four propositional scenarios be presented more visually in a table?
4. In Section 3, line 134 , ‘Based on the motivation from practice, we consider an OEM offers the new products itself, but outsources its remanufacturing to a third-party remanufacturer’, Whether the basis of practice can be presented?
5. The author should provide more detailed information about the experimental procedures, data collection methods, and processing techniques used in Section 3 formula (1). This will help readers understand the reliability of the experimental process and results.
6. While the article describes the experimental design, it did not explicitly state why this design was chosen. It is recommened that the author add the explanation of the rationality of the experimental design in the section of experimental methods to enhance the persuasiveness of the article.
7. In line 313, the conclusion section was labeled incorrectly.
8. In line 443, please refer to the journal's reference style for the exact format of the document.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
This article explores the issue of Eco-Design for OEMs in the closed-loop supply chain, particularly with regard to manufacturing and remanufacturing considerations. Based on practical observation, this paper puts forward two theoretical models to understand this problem and draws some meaningful conclusions.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions on our paper. We have tried our best to revise the paper to incorporate all your suggestions and address all your concerns.
Below we detail how we changed the paper in response to your comments and suggestions.
- Conclusion should be expanded as it doesn’t refer to the findings.Additionally, the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research should be clearly outlined.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have made a detailed discussion on the finding (see, lines 549-555) and clearly outlined potential directions for future researches. (see, lines 567-582).
- In Line 338, ‘we do not consider the possible regulations from governments and environmental groups’, What is the rationale behind not considering them? It is essential for authors to ensure experimental compliance.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have made an explicitly discussion for the meaning of [original] “we do not consider the possible regulations from governments and environmental groups” (see, lines 568-574)
- The Analysis and insights section , could the differences and connections between the four propositional scenarios be presented more visually in a table?
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! Following your suggestion, in this revision, we have added a table that illustrates the connections for the main insights (see, Table 4 at lines 294-295).
4. In Section 3, line 134 , ‘Based on the motivation from practice, we consider an OEM offers the new products itself, but outsources its remanufacturing to a third-party remanufacturer’, Whether the basis of practice can be presented?
Response: Thank you for pointing it out! In this revision, we have reorganized the introduction and added some motivations for the practice that OEM offers the new products itself, but outsources its remanufacturing to the third-party remanufacturers (see, Lines 66-75).
- The author should provide more detailed information about the experimental procedures, data collection methods, and processing techniques used in Section 3 formula (1). This will help readers understand the reliability of the experimental process and results.
Response: Thank you for pointing it out! In this revision, we have added more detailed information about the inverse demand function in (1) (see, Figure 2 and explanation in lines 230-236).
- While the article describes the experimental design, it did not explicitly state why this design was chosen. It is recommended that the author add the explanation of the rationality of the experimental design in the section of experimental methods to enhance the persuasiveness of the article.
Response: Thank you for pointing it out! In this revision, we have added “
4.2. Nurmerical analysis”, in which we have made a detailed discussion on why the experimental design. (see, lines 444-521).
- In line 313, the conclusion section was labeled incorrectly.
Response: This mistake has been corrected, thanks!
- In line 443, please refer to the journal's reference style for the exact format of the document.
Response: Thank you for pointing it out! In this revision, we have changed all reference style into the Sustainability's reference style.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments:
1. In phrases like "Based on observations from practice, two theoretical models were developed to understand the Eco-design for a closed-loop supply chain with outsourcing," it is recommended to avoid using "We," "Us," "Our," etc. Instead, passive voice should be employed in this case to enhance the sense of pride in the work. Please ensure clear mention of the novelty of this present work.
2. It is also suggested to present the work with an infographic diagram by highlighting aspects at the end of the literature review, such as recent problems, research gaps, innovative ideas, or novelty to address the issues, objectives, the name of the work process or methodology, and expected outcomes, etc.
3. The authors developed "two theoretical models to understand the Eco-design for a closed-loop supply chain with outsourcing," and in this regard, the authors are requested to present the theoretical models through schematic flowcharts/infographic diagrams.
4. Please adhere to the journal manuscript guidelines. For instance, in Section 2, it should be "Materials and Methods." Hence, since the work is theoretical, section 2 could be titled "Methods." Under this section, describe the process (preferably with a flow chart diagram), and the remaining sections "3. Model Formulation" and "4. Model Solution" could be presented as subsections.
5. Industrial engineering-related works could be more informative, easier to understand, and more attractive to readers if presented with infographic diagrams. The authors are requested to present the work as clearly as possible with diagrams.
6. At the conclusion, the authors should include their recommendations for the practical industrial application(s) of their work.
7. Please verify the accuracy of the equations to avoid any errors.
Author Response
- In phrases like "Based on observations from practice, two theoretical models were developed to understand the Eco-design for a closed-loop supply chain with outsourcing," it is recommended to avoid using "We," "Us," "Our," etc. Instead, passive voice should be employed in this case to enhance the sense of pride in the work.
Response: Thank you for pointing it out! In this revision, following your suggestions, we have changed all the using of “We," "Us," "Our," etc.” into the impersonally state to enhance the sense of pride in the work.
- Please ensure clear mention of the novelty of this present work. It is also suggested to present the work with an infographic diagram by highlighting aspects at the end of the literature review, such as recent problems, research gaps, innovative ideas, or novelty to address the issues, objectives, the name of the work process or methodology, and expected outcomes, etc.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! In this revision, we have make a detailed discussion on the novelty of this present work (see, e.g., lines 91-102) and present the work with an infographic diagram about the literature review (see, Table 1 at line 193).
- The authors developed "two theoretical models to understand the Eco-design for a closed-loop supply chain with outsourcing," and in this regard, the authors are requested to present the theoretical models through schematic flowcharts/infographic diagrams.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! In this revision, we have made the Figure 1 to present the theoretical models. (see, Figure 1 at lines 210-221)
- Please adhere to the journal manuscript guidelines. For instance, in Section 2, it should be "Materials and Methods." Hence, since the work is theoretical, section 2 could be titled "Methods." Under this section, describe the process (preferably with a flow chart diagram), and the remaining sections "3. Model Formulation" and "4. Model Solution" could be presented as subsections.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! In this revision, following your suggestion, we have changed the [original] “3. Model formulation” into [now] “3. Methods” and let "4. Model Formulation" and "4. Model Solution" to be presented as subsections. (see, Lines 194-289).
- Industrial engineering-related works could be more informative, easier to understand, and more attractive to readers if presented with infographic diagrams. The authors are requested to present the work as clearly as possible with diagrams.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! In this revision, we have added Table 1 that present the related works (see, Table 1 at line 193).
- At the conclusion, the authors should include their recommendations for the practical industrial application(s) of their work.
Response: Thank you for the constructive suggestion! In this revision, we have revised the conclusion and added the explicitly recommendations for the practical industrial application(s) (see, lines 550-555).
- Please verify the accuracy of the equations to avoid any errors.
Response: Thank you for pointing it out! In this revision, we have carefully checked the accuracy of the equations and adopted the Editing serve of MDPI (see, the following attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
