Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A quick description of what is unique about the MLFLAP Algorithm may hlep the readers understand faster.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

I am pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of the manuscript applsci-2578538, entitled in the submission “Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture”. We appreciate your comments and constructive suggestions, which are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. Thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript.

We have studied the comments carefully and improved the review and case study. Meanwhile, we have adopted all reviewers’ suggestions and clarified the text when needed. We hope these modifications meet with approval. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate their identification. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

#Response to Reviewer:

Comments to the Author: A quick description of what is unique about the MLFLAP Algorithm may help the readers faster.

 

Author Response:

Thanks for your advice. The uniqueness of the MLFLAP can be described from two parts: mathematical model and solution approach.

In the mathematical model, this paper considers determining the location of different facilities with hierarchical relationships, the service allocation of service units, and the service vehicle allocation. The P-region model and set covering location model are integrated to minimize the total service costs. Besides, the multi-level facility location considers the contiguity criteria to ensure all service units served by one service facility are geographically contiguous with constraints (13) – (15), which is special in agriculture.

In the solution approach, Benders decomposition is introduced to decompose the original MLFLAPs into the master problem (MP) and two subproblems (SP₁ and SP₂), which can be named a variant Benders decomposition. In addition, the description of subproblem SP2 is different from the traditional Benders decomposition.

In all, considering reviewers’ suggestions, the uniqueness of the MLFLAP is added in this paper, which is shown in Section 3 Problem Description and Model Formulation, and Section 4 Benders Decomposition Approach.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript, entitled „ Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture ". The manuscript reports that, s. The Benders decomposition-based solution method with several improvements is then applied to decompose the original MLFLAP into master problem and subproblems to find the optimal solutions effectively. Finally, a real-world case in China is proposed to evaluate the performance of model and algorithm in agriculture, and sensitivity analysis is also conducted to demonstrate the impact of several parameters. There are modifications that should be included in order to enhance the manuscript for the readers.

·         Please highlight in introduction, what is the novelty (originality) of the work? And what is new in your work that makes a difference in the body of knowledge?

·         Please remove from the line 75 to line 79, this is structure of manuscript.

·         Please, write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

 

·         Please write about the limitations of this work in details in conclusion section.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

I am pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of the manuscript applsci-2578538, entitled in the submission “Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture”. We appreciate your comments and constructive suggestions, which are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. Thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript.

We have studied the comments carefully and improved the review and case study. Meanwhile, we have adopted all reviewers’ suggestions and clarified the text when needed. We hope these modifications meet with approval. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate their identification. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

#Response to Reviewer:

Comments to the Author: The manuscript, entitled „ Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture ". The manuscript reports that, s. The Benders decomposition-based solution method with several improvements is then applied to decompose the original MLFLAP into master problem and subproblems to find the optimal solutions effectively. Finally, a real-world case in China is proposed to evaluate the performance of model and algorithm in agriculture, and sensitivity analysis is also conducted to demonstrate the impact of several parameters. There are modifications that should be included in order to enhance the manuscript for the readers.

Author Response:

Thanks for your positive feedback. We have studied the comments carefully and improved the review and case study. Meanwhile, we have adopted all reviewers’ suggestions and clarified the text when needed.

 

R1C1: Please highlight in introduction, what is the novelty (originality) of the work? And what is new in your work that makes a difference in the body of knowledge?

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The novelty of this work is described in Section 1 Introduction. Besides, the inadequacies of the previous studies are summarized in the last paragraph in Section 2 Literature Review. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

R1C2: Please remove from the line 75 to line 79, this is structure of manuscript.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The structure of the manuscript is omitted in this paper.

 

R1C3: Please, write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. In this paper, first, the sensitivity analysis of key parameters is conducted to find the suitable number of service stations and maximal service distance for decision-makers. Besides, the contiguity criteria are analyzed to ensure a contiguous service area for managers in practical application. Besides, the case study is from a famous agricultural machinery manufacturer in China, and all data are provided by the practical application. Thus, the practical application is added in Section 5 Case study.

 

R1C4: Please write about the limitations of this work in details in conclusion section.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The limitations of this work are added in Section 6 Conclusion and future study.

 

R1C5: Minor editing of English language required.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. As suggested by the reviewer, the revised manuscript is rechecked by the authors and language experts for any such errors. Besides, the software Grammarly is applied to check and revise the paper. Many (more than twenty) addition/deletion instances of correction are carried out to improve readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article entitled “Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture”, presents an approach for developing a maintenance service network for agriculture involving the location of spare part centers and service stations, along with the allocation results of service vehicles.

As it appears from studying the paper, its context is quite interesting and addresses to the readership of the Journal, involving a high number of up-to-date references relevant to the subject of study. The authors adequately describe the research problem and present the methodology which is followed in this work. In addition, this methodology is applied in a case study which took place in East China for validation purposes. The location-allocation results in the service network indicate positive assessment of the proposed approach. Additionally, the methodology analysis, as well as the assessment of the method are enriched with an efficient number of properly presented figures and charts.

However, the conclusions section is quite short and general. This section should be further developed since the findings of the research as well as their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.

Finally, the paper is well-structured in general and written in appropriate English language according to the standards of the Journal, however some minor spell-checking might be of use.

In overall, although the content of the article could be considered as interesting, the authors do not fully succeed in substantiating the novelty of the presented methodology (Benders decomposition solution approach) or justify why the maintenance service network in the agricultural sector differs in comparison to the networks of other sectors. If the authors manage to improve these two points it would significantly improve the quality of this paper and be for the benefit of the research community.

Minor spell-checking is necessary.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

I am pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of the manuscript applsci-2578538, entitled in the submission “Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture”. We appreciate your comments and constructive suggestions, which are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. Thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript.

We have studied the comments carefully and improved the review and case study. Meanwhile, we have adopted all reviewers’ suggestions and clarified the text when needed. We hope these modifications meet with approval. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate their identification. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

#Response to Reviewer:

Comments to the Author: The article entitled “Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture”, presents an approach for developing a maintenance service network for agriculture involving the location of spare part centers and service stations, along with the allocation results of service vehicles.

As it appears from studying the paper, its context is quite interesting and addresses to the readership of the Journal, involving a high number of up-to-date references relevant to the subject of study.  The authors adequately describe the research problem and present the methodology which is followed in this work.  In addition, this methodology is applied in a case study which took place in East China for validation purposes.  The location-allocation results in the service network indicate positive assessment of the proposed approach.  Additionally, the methodology analysis, as well as the assessment of the method are enriched with an efficient number of properly presented figures and charts.

Author Response:

Thanks for your positive feedback. We have studied the comments carefully and improved the review and case study. Meanwhile, we have adopted all reviewers’ suggestions and clarified the text when needed.

 

R1C1: However, the conclusions section is quite short and general.  This section should be further developed since the findings of the research as well as their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The practical application is added in Section 5 Case Study, and the findings of the research as well as their implications are described in detail in Section 6 Conclusion and Future Study.

 

R1C2: Finally, the paper is well-structured in general and written in appropriate English language according to the standards of the Journal, however some minor spell-checking might be of use.

Minor spell-checking is necessary.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. As suggested by the reviewer, the revised manuscript is rechecked by the authors and language experts for any such errors. Besides, the software Grammarly is applied to check and revise the paper. Many (more than twenty) addition/deletion instances of correction are carried out to improve readability.

 

R1C3: In overall, although the content of the article could be considered as interesting, the authors do not fully succeed in substantiating the novelty of the presented methodology (Benders decomposition solution approach) or justify why the maintenance service network in the agricultural sector differs in comparison to the networks of other sectors.  If the authors manage to improve these two points it would significantly improve the quality of this paper and be for the benefit of the research community.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. As suggested by the reviewer, the performance of the proposed Benders decomposition is added in Section 5.5 The performance of Benders decomposition and the differences between the agricultural maintenance network and other service networks are described in Section 1 Introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The problem considered in this research is described as a multi-level facility location-allocation problem in the maintenance service network (MLFLAP) for agricultural machinery. The objective of the proposed MLFLAP is to minimize total costs, considering the total service mileage costs from service stations to service units, the usage costs of service vehicles, and the construction costs for spare part centres.

The literature review is presented in section 2 and summarised in Table 1. Please consider a vertical table as it does not fit very well in the paper, or a different structure.

The objective function used is described in a mathematical model and further used the Benders decomposition approach.

To prove the approach, an experimental case study in China is presented, with real maintenance data from 3 provinces, calculating optimal servicing distances.

The conclusion presents the following: Computational results demonstrated that total service costs experience a downward trend with the increase of the number of service stations and the reduction gets smaller with the increase of the number of service stations. Besides, total service costs also increase with the decrease in the value of maximal service distance.

While the conclusions seem intuitive, it is unclear what is the novelty brought by the study. The aim was to demonstrate the performance of such a location-allocation algorithm and its success in minimising costs. For this, the case study would require a comparison with a different approach, so that the experimental results can be evaluated. Please be more generous in a discussion on the findings of the study and why they are relevant, what novelty they bring to the body of research. Otherwise, this might seem just a classical greedy approach, which is nice, but with no clear research learnings.

Moreover, is there any reallocation of machinery service when new scheduling is required, which might affect the overall cost? (ex. Based on the priority of usage cost of machinery – or is it reasonable that all vehicles have the same usage cost)? The case study presented seems to be very much simplified.

Can you explain more about constant M and why/how it was chosen?

Could you present your findings in relation to similar literature in the field? For example are these results similar, or better, what are the metrics used for evaluation and can you use them as well?

The references are a bit old, with no papers from 2022-2023, very few 2020 or 2021, and mostly 2009-2019. I recommend updating the literature review with the latest works if possible.

 

While the problem is relevant and the approach is interesting, the paper requires more insight into the research methodology and findings, and why they are relevant. These should also be highlighted in the conclusions.

Examples of language issues detected:

- line 46 – abrupt end of sentence starting in line 43.

- unclear some words might require plural (issues  line 46?)

- line 53 – maintenance demands happening ?

- line 54 – can only be

- line 193 – which including

 

- line 233-234 in this paper is written twice

-  general: missing "the" article in many cases

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

I am pleased to resubmit for publication the revised version of the manuscript applsci-2578538, entitled in the submission “Joint location-allocation model for multi-level maintenance service network in agriculture”. We appreciate your comments and constructive suggestions, which are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. Thank you very much for allowing us to revise our manuscript.

We have studied the comments carefully and improved the review and case study. Meanwhile, we have adopted all reviewers’ suggestions and clarified the text when needed. We hope these modifications meet with approval. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate their identification. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

#Response to Reviewer:

Comments to the Author: The problem considered in this research is described as a multi-level facility location-allocationproblem in the maintenance service network (MLFLAP) for agricultural machinery. The objectiveof the proposed MLFLAP is to minimize total costs. considering the total service mileage costsfrom service stations to service units. the usage costs of service vehicles. and the constructioncosts for spare part centres.

Author Response:

Thanks for your positive feedback.

 

R1C1: The literature review is presented in section 2 and summarised in Table 1. Please consider avertical table as it does not fit very well in the paper, or a different structure.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The literature review in Table 1 is revised with a different structure.

 

R1C2: The objective function used is described in a mathematical model and further used the Bendersdecomposition approach.

lo prove the approach, an experimental case study in China is presented, with real maintenancedata from 3 provinces.  calculating optimal servicing distances

The conclusion presents the following: Computational results demonstrated that total servicecosts experience a downward trend with the increase of the number of service stations and thereduction gets smaller with the increase of the number of service stations.  Besides, total servicecosts also increase with the decrease in the value of maximal service distance

While the conclusions seem intuitive.  it is unclear what is the novelty brought by the study.  Theaim was to demonstrate the performance of such a location-allocation algorithm and its successin minimising costs.  For this, the case study would require a comparison with a differentapproach, so that the experimental results can be evaluated.  Please be more generous in adiscussion on the findings of the study and why they are relevant, what novelty they bring to thebody of research.  Otherwise, this might seem just a classical greedy approach, which is nice, butwith no clear research learnings

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. As suggested by the reviewer, the description on this case study is improved.

1) As for the sensibility analysis of maximal service distance, the maximum service distance is usually related to service timeliness and service satisfaction. Through the analysis of maximum service distance, the service network can obtain higher service satisfaction at a smaller service cost. Thus, in this paper, total service costs increase with the decrease in the value of maximal service distance. Besides, the changing trend of service cost becomes larger gradually with the decrease of the maximal service distance. In this case, manufacturers usually choose a suitable maximum service distance to ensure that they can obtain a small service cost while improving customer satisfaction. Therefore, the maximal service distance may be set as 130km to 160km from a comprehensive perspective.

2) As for the number of service stations, total service costs experience a downward trend as l increases from 9 to 35, and the reduction gets smaller with the increase in the value of l. Thus, in this case, the number of service stations may be set as 20 to 30 from a comprehensive perspective.

3) As for the performance of the proposed decomposition approach, the Section 5.5 The performance of Benders decomposition is added in this paper.

 

R1C3: Moreover, is there any reallocation of machinery service when new scheduling is required, whichmight affect the overall cost?  (ex. Based on the priority of usage cost of machinery -- or is iteasonable that all vehicles have the same usage cost)?  The case study presented seems to bevery much simplified

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. There is no need to reschedule service resources in this paper. In addition, during the busy farming season, the manufacturer will dispatch additional emergency service vehicles to meet the dynamic change in service demand, which is studied in my other papers, such as:

[1] W. Ren and Y. Hu, “Heuristic Decision for Static and Dynamic Service Facility Location in Agricultural Maintenance Service Network,” IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag., vol. 2022-December, pp. 275–279, 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEM55944.2022.9989981.

[2] REN W, HU Y. Research on dynamic facility location-allocation considering maintenance stations in agriculture. ICIEA 2023. (accepted)

 

R1C4: Can you explain more about constant M and why/how it was chosen?

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The constant M is introduced for contiguity criteria, which is applied to demonstrate that all service units served by one service station are contiguous. In this paper, the constant M is always set as the number of service unit, just as 251 in the case study in this paper.

 

R1C5: Could you present your findings in relation to similar literature in the field?  For example are theseresults similar, or better, what are the metrics used for evaluation and can you use them as wel? The references are a bit old, with no papers from 2022-2023, very few 2020 or 2021, and mostly2009-2019.  I recommend updating the literature review with the latest works if possible.

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The reference is updated to demonstrate the novelty of this paper, which is concluded in Section 1 Introduction, and the last paragraph in Section 2 Literature Review.

 

R1C6: While the problem is relevant and the approach is interesting, the paper requires more insightinto the research methodology and findings, and why they are relevant.  These should also behighlighted in the conclusions..

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. The conclusion is updated considering your advice.

 

R1C7: Examples of lanquage issues detected. line 46 - abrupt end of sentence starting in line 43. unclear some words might require plural (issues line 46?)line 53 -maintenance demands happening ?line 54 - can only be.-line 193 - which including

line 233-234 in this paper is written twice;general: missing "the" article in many cases

Author response:

Thanks for your advice. As suggested by the reviewer, the revised manuscript is rechecked by the authors and language experts for any such errors. Besides, the software Grammarly is applied to check and revise the paper. Many (more than twenty) addition/deletion instances of correction are carried out to improve readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The improvements to the paper are satisfactory and bring valuable clarifications, therefore I recommend it for publication.