Optimizing Dual Distribution Scheme in Pharmaceutical Cold Chain for Cost and Carbon Emissions Reduction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has serious methodological problems:
-It presents a way to consider emissions without any impact of speed or load in a given arc. Furthermore, in (5), a q_k parameter is not previously described.
-Does not describe the instances in detail: (1) 31 customers are a small number to asses the efficiency; (2) only mentions that the number of customers increases without any description.
-The comparisons are based on comparisons with algorithms not described in detail (they are only stated unreasonably and without any rigor.)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer1 Comments
Dear Reviewer
I am writing to you with regard to our manuscript, originally titled "Pharmaceutical cold chain optimization method for dual distribution scheme from the perspective of carbon emission reduction". We have now changed the title to "Optimizing Dual Distribution Scheme in Pharmaceutical Cold Chain for Cost and Carbon Emission Reduction" (applsci-2288457). On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our article. Your suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and overall readability of our paper. We have made extensive modifications to our manuscript based on your recommendations to make our results more convincing.
Concerning each of the recommendations you mentioned, we detail the results of each of the proposed changes below.
Point 1: It presents a way to consider emissions without any impact of speed or load in a given arc. Furthermore in (5), a q_k parameter is not previously described.
Response 1 ：Thank you for your guidance. We have carefully reviewed and revised each parameter to ensure that they have been properly introduced.
Point 2: Does not describe the instances in detail: (1) 31 customers are a small number to asses the efficiency; (2) only mentions that the number of customers increases without any description.
Response 2 : Thank you very much for your suggestion. The 46 customer nodes that we selected represent actual transportation cases. To ensure that our algorithm is effective in larger parameter environments, we included an additional group of examples with 202 customer nodes which were not real cases, but rather simulations. Furthermore, we have taken into consideration your suggestions and have continued to expand our sample size and conduct gap value comparisons to further verify the practicality and efficacy of our algorithm.
Point 3: The comparisons are based on comparisons with algorithms not described in detail (they are only stated unreasonably and without any rigor.)
Response 3 : Thank you very much for your guidance. We have taken your suggestions into account and have added supplementary information regarding hyperparameter tuning and run time comparison results for each comparison algorithm to enhance the rigour of our proposed method. In addition, we have increased the number of operations for each algorithm and expanded the number of nodes for multiple experiments to ensure the stability and effectiveness of our proposed method.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our proposed method, we thoroughly polished the language throughout the full text, double-checked all parameters and formulas, increased the number of experimental nodes and trials, supplemented the pseudo-code of the algorithm, and added a comparison of GAP values. These efforts not only improve the stability and practicality of our approach but also enhance the overall clarity and readability of our article.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the changes we have made have improved the quality of our work, and we hope that you will find our revised article to be satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Xulun Shao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution is very interesting and well-written, addressing a hotly debated topic from an environmental perspective.
I suggest improving the conclusion by including some more considerations from a management perspective or reference to the 2030 Agenda.
Moreover, replace figure 1, with a higher resolution copy.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer2 Comments
Dear Reviewer
I am writing to you with regard to our manuscript, originally titled "Pharmaceutical cold chain optimization method for dual distribution scheme from the perspective of carbon emission reduction". We have now changed the title to "Optimizing Dual Distribution Scheme in Pharmaceutical Cold Chain for Cost and Carbon Emission Reduction" (applsci-2288457). On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our article. Your suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and overall readability of our paper. We have made modifications to our manuscript based on your recommendations to make our results more convincing.
Concerning each of the recommendations you mentioned, we detail the results of each of the proposed changes below.
Point 1: I suggest improving the conclusion by including some more considerations from a management perspective or reference to the 2030 Agenda.
Response 1： Thank you for your guidance. We have revised our conclusion to explore effective strategies for achieving sustainable development in pharmaceutical cold chain logistics and aligning these efforts with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. Specifically, we have emphasized the importance of adopting a management perspective in our approach. By taking this approach, we can address industry challenges while also advancing progress towards the goals of sustainable development.
Point 2 : Replace figure 1, with a higher resolution copy.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We updated figure 1 to give it a higher definition.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our proposed method, we thoroughly polished the language throughout the full text, double-checked all parameters and formulas, increased the number of experimental nodes and trials, supplemented the pseudo-code of the algorithm, and added a comparison of GAP values. These efforts not only improve the stability and practicality of our approach but also enhance the overall clarity and readability of our article.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the changes we have made have improved the quality of our work, and we hope that you will find our revised article to be satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Xulun Shao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The title is too long and is missing one of the objectives mentioned in the abstract which is reducing cost.
2. All abbreviations must be defined before first introduced, for example what is PDF in page 5
3. The cost analysis in Section 3.4 is not clear enough. The authors can either include final conclusions about cost and vehicle use without giving details, or include more information that lead to these conclusions.
4. The authors need to revise the mathematical model since equations (1) and (2) are technically incorrect since the summation over z sums over parentheses that do not include the symbol z.
5. English language needs revision.
6. In some parts of the paper very long sentences are written, the authors are recommended to cut these long sentences into short ones for ease of reading.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer3 Comments
Dear Reviewer
I am writing to you with regard to our manuscript, originally titled "Pharmaceutical cold chain optimization method for dual distribution scheme from the perspective of carbon emission reduction". We have now changed the title to "Optimizing Dual Distribution Scheme in Pharmaceutical Cold Chain for Cost and Carbon Emission Reduction" (applsci-2288457). On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our article. Your suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and overall readability of our paper. We have made extensive modifications to our manuscript based on your recommendations to make our results more convincing.
Concerning each of the recommendations you mentioned, we detail the results of each of the proposed changes below.
Response to the comments
Point 1: The title is too long and is missing one of the objectives mentioned in the abstract which is reducing cost.
Response 1： Thank you for your guidance. To better capture the focus and contribution of our study, we modified the title by shortening it and adding a reference to cost reduction. Specifically, our new title emphasizes the potential for reducing costs associated with the methods proposed in our research.
Point 2: All abbreviations must be defined before first introduced, for example what is PDF in page 5.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. To enhance the accessibility and clarity of our article, we have provided detailed explanations for each of the initial abbreviations used throughout.
Point 3 : The cost analysis in Section 3.4 is not clear enough. The authors can either include final conclusions about cost and vehicle use without giving details, or include more information that lead to these conclusions.
Response 3 : Thank you very much for your guidance. To enhance clarity regarding the functionality of our proposed dual distribution method, we revised the cost analysis section (3.4). These revisions ensure that readers can more easily understand how the method works and how it contributes to reducing transportation costs and carbon emissions.
Point 4: The authors need to revise the mathematical model since equations (1) and (2) are technically incorrect since the summation over z sums over parentheses that do not include the symbol z.
Response 4: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have fixed the problem with equations (1) and (2).
Point 5:English language needs revision.
Response 5 : We would like to express our gratitude for your invaluable feedback. In response to your suggestions, we have thoroughly polished the language throughout the entire manuscript to enhance both the standardization of academic terminology and the overall readability of the article.
Point 6: In some parts of the paper very long sentences are written, the authors are recommended to cut these long sentences into short ones for ease of reading.
Response 6: We greatly appreciate your expert advice, which has inspired us to make significant revisions to our manuscript in order to enhance its overall readability. These revisions required a substantial amount of time and effort, but we believe that they will ultimately improve the quality and impact of our work.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our proposed method, we thoroughly polished the language throughout the full text, double-checked all parameters and formulas, increased the number of experimental nodes and trials, supplemented the pseudo-code of the algorithm, and added a comparison of GAP values. These efforts not only improve the stability and practicality of our approach but also enhance the overall clarity and readability of our article.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the changes we have made have improved the quality of our work, and we hope that you will find our revised article to be satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Xulun Shao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see the attached review report file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer4 Comments
Dear Reviewer
I am writing to you with regard to our manuscript, originally titled "Pharmaceutical cold chain optimization method for dual distribution scheme from the perspective of carbon emission reduction". We have now changed the title to "Optimizing Dual Distribution Scheme in Pharmaceutical Cold Chain for Cost and Carbon Emission Reduction" (applsci-2288457). On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our article. Your suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and overall readability of our paper. We have made extensive modifications to our manuscript based on your recommendations to make our results more convincing.
Concerning each of the recommendations you mentioned, we detail the results of each of the proposed changes below.
Response to the comments
Point 1: In Eq. (10) and (11), ??? and ??? were not defined in your paper.
Response 1 ： Thank you for your guidance. We have carefully reviewed and revised each parameter to ensure that they have been properly introduced.
Point 2 : The experiment by implementing the provided mathematical model must be performed, so that the optimality of the proposed mathematical model can be testified.
Response 2 : Thank you very much for your suggestion. In order to verify the optimality of the proposed mathematical model, we conducted a GAP value comparison. This was defined as the mean value of 20 runs of a certain algorithm minus the optimal solution obtained by all algorithms, divided by the optimal solution obtained by all algorithms, and then multiplied by 100%. To ensure the validity of our findings, we used different node scales for the calculation of the algorithm. Through this approach, we were able to confirm whether the proposed mathematical model is indeed optimal.
Point 3 : I also could not confirm the performance of the proposed GWO since your experiment design in Section 6 is ambiguous to verify the performance.
Response 3 : Thank you very much for your guidance. To address this issue, we incorporated hyper-parameter tuning and compared the operation time of different algorithms under varying numbers of nodes. Additionally, we conducted several relative comparison to explore the advantages of IGWO under different node scales. Furthermore, we conducted absolute comparison to investigate the stability and utility of IGWO in scenarios requiring multiple calculates. All of these measures were taken to provide evidence for the superiority of the proposed IGWO algorithm.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our proposed method, we thoroughly polished the language throughout the full text, double-checked all parameters and formulas, increased the number of experimental nodes and trials, and supplemented the pseudo-code of the algorithm. These efforts not only improve the stability and practicality of our approach but also enhance the overall clarity and readability of our article.
Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the changes we have made have improved the quality of our work, and we hope that you will find our revised article to be satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Xulun Shao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
I accept the manuscript because all the suggestions that I requested is satisfied.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are deeply grateful for the constructive feedback provided and would like to express our sincere appreciation for your recognition of the efforts we have made in modifying the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
