Sharing a Ride: A Dual-Service Model of People and Parcels Sharing Taxis with Loose Time Windows of Parcels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

General Comments: The study focuses on the Share-a-Ride Problem (SARP) and provides a comprehensive analysis of its operational mechanism and cost-benefit aspects. It makes a significant contribution to existing research on passenger and freight co-transportation problems by addressing some of the shortcomings of current studies. The research introduces an optimization model that considers the loose time windows of parcels to optimize profits, and proposes an adaptive large neighborhood search algorithm (AC-ALNS) that incorporates an ant colony information update mechanism to solve the model. The numerical experimental results demonstrate the benefits of both the model and the AC-ALNS algorithm. Overall, this is an interesting and timely study that merits publication after some revisions.

Specific Comments:

1, Please provide the full name for the abbreviation SARP-LTW in the abstract for clarity.

2, Could you clarify whether the taxi considered in your study is a ride-hailing taxi or a traditional taxi? This distinction is important for understanding the context and applicability of your findings.

3, Ensure that all references are cited following the journal’s citation style. This will help maintain consistency and professionalism in the manuscript.

4, The first paragraph of the Introduction section should be removed. It appears redundant and does not add significant value to the introduction of the topic.

5, Please provide a brief analysis of the characteristics of the proposed model. Specifically, discuss whether the model can be solved using commercial solvers and under what conditions.

6, Provide more details and information on the Solomon standard problem instances used in your study. This will help readers understand the benchmarking process and the validity of your results.

7, The title of Table 5 needs to be revised to be more informative. A descriptive title will help readers quickly grasp the content and significance of the table.

8, In Table 6, add the related units for the performance measures. This will ensure clarity and facilitate better interpretation of the results.

9, Discuss the convergence and optimality of the AC-ALNS algorithm in more detail. This analysis is crucial for understanding the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the field of passenger and freight co-transportation. The proposed optimization model and AC-ALNS algorithm are well-founded and demonstrate significant potential in addressing the Share-a-Ride Problem. After addressing the above-mentioned revisions, I believe the manuscript will be ready for publication. I look forward to seeing the final version of this important work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It's ok, but some revisions are required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I have an editorial comment on the submitted text. In the introduction, please remove the first paragraph covering lines 30-39 - these are from the magazine template. I will then address the substantive assessment of the article. The article basically deals with the important issue of the sharing economy, which is an important contemporary trend, but also a model of operation not only in local communities, with which it has so far been associated, but also in business. Many concepts are based on this model, but logistics has so far approached them with a great deal of caution, and it is with this caution that the authors of this article should approach this topic. What does this caution consist of? First of all, what is missing here is a purely organisational approach on how to organise such flows from a functional point of view - how to plan them, organise them, select resources and, above all, control them. In this respect, it would have been useful if the article had at least mentioned risk management in the organisation and implementation of such flows. However, the sharing economy strategy in business has already experienced several major crises. Commercial business models that have based their operation precisely on the sharing economy, treating it solely in terms of profit and not value, have already been criticised more than once by their consumers. In the context of B2B, i.e. business-to-business (and I think this is the kind of relationship we are talking about here), sharing models have many benefits: reducing operating costs (e.g. by using other companies' resources or infrastructure), earning from unused flow routes, increasing flexibility of operations and maintaining e.g. continuity/flexibility of supply, and increasing the portfolio or differentiation of one's services. This is unfortunately not mentioned by the authors of the article. Yes, all their attention is focused on the construction of the model, which I do not question (in the first version of the article all the values of the proposed algorithm were not clear, but the authors corrected them), but I miss a detailed description of the operational scenarios for the developed model. The literature used by the authors is mainly focused around an overview of mathematical models and decision-making processes. I miss the inclusion of literature covering economic and social aspects of sharing economics. At what scale is this concept applicable (resource and territorial constraints are missing here?)? Is it universal and can it be applied in any country on any continent? I have big doubts here? Especially in the context of securing loads, their vulnerability especially economically! It is also worth pointing out here that if specialised vehicles have to be used, adapted for example to the transport of medicines or foodstuffs, the concept is much more difficult to implement.

In the methodological context of the review, there is a lack of clearly formulated research hypotheses, especially since the authors took the trouble to conduct the research using quantitative methods. Unfortunately, without hypotheses or research questions, it is difficult to talk about correct inference. Another doubt is the lack of discussion with other approaches proposed in the literature by other authors. I think this is recommended by the editors of the journal, and I therefore recommend that the article be supplemented with a discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the authors' efforts on revising the paper. I have no more questions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

looks good for me.