Research on Supply Chain Network Resilience: Considering Risk Propagation and Node Type

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors! 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled: ”Research on supply chain network resilience: Considering risk propagation and node type ". It is a dense but highly informative work.

Although the iThenticate report shows a high match, I did not find any problems after checking.

Title: The title of the manuscript is well describing the paper.

Abstract: Although everything is there and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it sounds very mechanical and does not arouse interest. I recommend a rewrite, but I don't demand it.

Introduction and literature review: The introduction and the literature review are very deep, and adequate. the scientific gap and the motivation can be recognized. The summary can be in a table format for better understanding and transparency.

Materials and methods: I find nothing fundamentally wrong with the formulas. They can be used. In the description of the model, where the steps are, I would also prefer to see them in a flowchart. A disturbing factor is that the MFTS should be in the index for the MFTSS parameter. Its efficiency and useability are proven. The sensitivity test and the practical example show the usability well.

Conclusions: The conclusion is clear, the theorems are proved, and well written.. The results are usable.

The language is very good, I didn’t find any problem.  

In my opinion, a well-written and structured, scientifically verifiable, and useful work can be seen here. I accept this work with or without the changes. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer！

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision of our paper. These comments have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our paper.

Regarding your comments on the abstract, introduction and literature review, these suggestions are pertinent, and we still decided to adopt the current version after careful and serious discussion. In the Materials and Methods section, your suggested changes are very important and we have taken them all on board and revised them. When describing the steps of the model, we describe them in the form of flowcharts. We have also added the distinction between MFTS and MFTSS to make the two concepts clearer.

Finally, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of our research work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Interesting paper with potent ideas for research development. The juxtaposition of research areas and the adopted methodology are the undoubted advantages of the article. Unfortunately, the article also has shortcomings that require correction, i.e.: - please indicate the aim of the paper in the Introduction Chapter, not only the research question, - the research results are not transferred into practical justifications - please provide information on why the research results are important for practice, how they should be related to the real supply chain, and who can benefit from the research results, - please develop managerial insight which in the current version in a few sentences does not present the full potential of the results of the research, - in the Case Study Chapter please add more detailed information about SCN existing in the real-life which you selected, - in the Case Study Chapter please explain what are the effects of your research for SCN existing in the real-life which you selected, - in the Literature Review Chapter please develop the area of resilience in the supply chain, also in the risk context, due to the references such as e.g.: - doi: 10.1108/bij-02-2023-0112 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26449-8 - doi: 10.1108/ijopm-11-2022-0694

Author Response

Dear Reviewer！

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision of our paper. These comments have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our paper. 

Your revisions to the Introduction Chapter pointed out the lacking contents in our paper, which is very important to improve the completeness of the paper. In the Introduction Chapter, we have added the purpose of the paper, explained why the research results are important for practice, and provided management advice on linking the research results to actual SCNs. In the Literature Review Chapter we have cited the references you provided and added research on SCNR in the context of risk. In the Case Study Chapter, we added detailed information about the selected real-life SCN that exists, calculated the average degree, clustering coefficients, and scaling indices of this network. In addition, we add content explaining how our study has implications for SCNs that exist in real life. 

Finally, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of our research work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

resilience of SCN is a complex problem but the approach you used is clear and concise.

The paper is well structured and written, methodology is explained.

Results are interesting and can be used in further research.

Congratulations on the paper,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer！

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision of our paper. These comments have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our paper. 

We have optimized the language of the paper, added the purpose of the paper, and added references. We have presented the experimental results and linked the research results to the actual supply chain with appropriate management advice. In addition, flowcharts were used to describe the steps of the model generation network.

Finally, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of our research work.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the manuscript can be published in the current version.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision of our paper. These comments have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our paper. We optimized the language of the paper to better describe the significance of our work to society and practice. Added Industry 4.0 to improve supply chain resilience. Finally, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of our research work.