A Study of the Main Mathematical Models Used in Mobility, Storage, Pickup and Delivery in Urban Logistics: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article has some value for the readers of this journal. However, the text of the manuscript needs editing. For examples:

- lack of approach in the literature review: supply chain, logistics operators and courier companies,

-  logistics centres, distribution centres and cross-docking.

The authors do not analyse changes before and during the Covid-19 pandemic, where companies changed their operating model through parcel delivery.

The authors mix the concepts of sustainable supply and last mile in their analysis.

The authors show no differences in the model for:

- small city areas and large urban agglomerations,

- no difference between small parcels and large ones placed on pallets,

- deliveries to individual versus institutional customers, i.e. companies.

Needless to say, the authors write about passenger transport - to be deleted, not applicable to this topic.

I did not receive answers to the following questions from the article:

- in which situations and which models work most frequently?

- Is it possible to use computer simulation of routes and when does this work?

- - to what extent is the change of distribution channel via parcel machines likely to have an impact on the change of model?

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the detailed analysis and observations provided. The feedback was precious and significantly improved our article. The adaptations made in response to your comments have made the work more robust and engaging, better aligning it with the scientific contribution intended for the readers of the journal. The changes made in response to your suggestions are highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript. Below are the responses to each of the points raised:

1) Lack of approach in the literature review:
Reviewer: "Lack of approach in the literature review on supply chain, logistics operators, courier companies, logistics centers, distribution centers, and cross-docking."

Response: We appreciate this observation and, based on it, expanded the literature review to include a more detailed discussion of the supply chain, logistics operators, and courier companies. Studies were added that address the importance of logistics centers, distribution centers, and cross-docking. This expanded review can now be found in the section Mobility in Urban Logistics. The inclusion of these references strengthens the theoretical foundation and broadens the relevance of the work by addressing broader issues in the logistics sector.

2) Analysis of changes before and during the Covid-19 pandemic:
Reviewer: "The authors do not analyze changes before and during the Covid-19 pandemic, where companies changed their operating model through parcel delivery."

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important topic, as it is indeed pertinent. As a result, we included an analysis of operational changes before, during and pos pandemic in the "Discussion" section, providing a broader view of the impact of this period on the mobility in urban logistic.

3) Mixing concepts of sustainable supply chain and last mile:
Reviewer: "The authors mix the concepts of sustainable supply chain and last mile in their analysis."

Response: We agree with the observation and have revised the relevant section to clarify the distinctions between the sustainable supply chain and last-mile logistics. Modifications were made to avoid any overlap or confusion between the two concepts. 

4) Differences in delivery models for small areas, large urban agglomerations, small packages versus large pallets, and between individual and institutional customers:
Reviewer: "The authors do not show differences in the model for small urban areas and large agglomerations, small packages and large ones on pallets, and deliveries to individual versus institutional customers."

Response: We appreciate the observation. We recognize that the articles used in the literature review did not specifically address differences between small urban areas and large agglomerations, small and large packages, or deliveries to individual versus institutional customers. However, we included a justification in the text to explain this limitation and added a discussion on how these variables can impact. This discussion can be found in the section Mobility in Urban Logistics, considering the importance of these distinctions for analyzing logistical operations.

5) Exclusion of passenger transport:
Reviewer: "The authors mention passenger transport - this should be excluded as it is not relevant to the topic."

Response: We agree with the reviewer's point, and we reaffirm that passenger transport will not be included in the analysis of goods mobility, as it is beyond the scope of this study. 

6) Unanswered questions:
Reviewer: "The authors did not answer questions about which situations and models work most frequently; whether it is possible to use computer simulation of routes and when this works; and the impact of parcel machines on the distribution model."

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to address these issues. We have incorporated this analysis in the “Discussion” and “Conclusion” sections, providing a more detailed overview of the most relevant logistic models and their applicability.

7) Insufficient presentation of the model:
Reviewer: "The authors did not sufficiently present the model, and the conclusion lacks information about which model is preferred and why. The authors also did not present at least one mathematical model with calculations."

Response: Although the presentation of specific mathematical models was not the central objective of the article, we have included a discussion in the conclusion regarding the type of logistical model most commonly used, as suggested. We explained the reasons why certain models stand out in different logistical contexts, while noting that an in-depth mathematical exploration was not part of the original scope of the study. Nonetheless, this inclusion in the conclusion provides a more comprehensive view of the preferences for logistical models in practice.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper is more rigorous in structure and clear in logic, systematically sorting out the core mathematical model of urban logistics and its application.

2. Through in-depth analysis of several literatures, this paper not only shows the characteristics of the current mainstream mathematical models, but also discusses the strategy of combining heuristics and precise solutions, which effectively improves the efficiency and accuracy of solving complex logistics scenarios.

3. The fourth part of the paper gives detailed examples of literatures on LRP, TLP and PDPs, and summarizes the problems, purposes and results solved by each literature.

4. The article should first introduce the concept of urban logistics clearly.

5. The connection and logic between the paragraphs in the introduction should be stronger.

6. Where is the basis of the question raised in the second part not clearly written out, the question should have a basis.

7. The fifth part has similar contents to the sixth part and can be integrated.

8. The results of Bibliometric Analysis concerning the selection of methods in different geographical environments are not fully reflected in the conclusion of this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall language of the article is smooth, the sentence structure is clear, the grammatical errors are less, and the content to be explained can be expressed more accurately. It can reduce the use of long sentences and improve readability.

Author Response

We would like to begin by sincerely thanking the reviewer for their thorough analysis and insightful feedback. Your comments were highly valuable in helping us enhance the quality of the article, making it more robust and comprehensive. The revisions we made in response to your suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and depth of the article, particularly in key areas. The changes made in response to your suggestions are highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript. Below are the responses to each of the points raised:

1) Rigor and structure of the paper:
Reviewer: "The paper is more rigorous in structure and clear in logic, systematically sorting out the core mathematical model of urban logistics and its application."

Response: We appreciate your positive evaluation of the paper’s rigor and structure. This was a key goal of the manuscript, and your acknowledgment reinforces that we are on the right track. We focused on creating a logical progression and clear explanation of the core mathematical models used in urban logistics and their practical applications, and we are glad that this was recognized.

2) Analysis of mainstream mathematical models and the combination of heuristics and precise solutions:
Reviewer: "Through in-depth analysis of several literatures, this paper not only shows the characteristics of the current mainstream mathematical models, but also discusses the strategy of combining heuristics and precise solutions, which effectively improves the efficiency and accuracy of solving complex logistics scenarios."

Response: Thank you for recognizing the in-depth analysis provided in the paper. We aimed to explore the current mainstream mathematical models thoroughly and to highlight the benefits of combining heuristic methods with precise solutions. This combination was included to demonstrate how it can improve the efficiency and accuracy of solving complex logistics scenarios. We believe that this discussion enriches the theoretical and practical perspectives of the study.

3) Detailed examples of LRP, TLP, and PDPs:
Reviewer: "The fourth part of the paper gives detailed examples of literatures on LRP, TLP, and PDPs, and summarizes the problems, purposes, and results solved by each literature."

Response: We appreciate your comments on the examples provided in the fourth part of the paper. The intent was to offer a comprehensive overview of LRP, TLP, and PDPs through detailed literature examples, and to summarize the key issues, goals, and outcomes addressed by each study. We are pleased that this section was well-received, as it forms a crucial component of our overall analysis.

4) Clear introduction of the concept of urban logistics:
Reviewer: "The article should first introduce the concept of urban logistics clearly."

Response: We agree with your suggestion and have revised the article to provide a clearer and more in-depth introduction to the concept of urban logistics. This enhancement has been added to the Mobility in Urban Logistics section, where the concept is now better defined and contextualized, ensuring that readers have a solid foundation for understanding the rest of the discussion.

5) Strengthening the connection and logic between paragraphs in the introduction:
Reviewer: "The connection and logic between the paragraphs in the introduction should be stronger."

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. While we fully recognize the importance of enhancing the logical connections between paragraphs, after careful consideration, we have decided not to make changes in this particular area. We believe that the current structure of the introduction aligns well with the intended flow and progression of ideas. That said, we deeply value your feedback, and your perspective is certainly relevant and appreciated.

6) Clear basis for the question raised in the second part:
Reviewer: "Where is the basis of the question raised in the second part not clearly written out, the question should have a basis."

Response: We are grateful for your input on this point. While we acknowledge the importance of clearly stating the basis for questions raised, we have chosen to respond to the issues raised more robustly in the discussion and conclusion. We believe that the current framing of the issues is in line with the overall direction of the article. However, we value your perspective and fully appreciate the relevance of your suggestion.

7) Integration of the fifth and sixth parts:
Reviewer: "The fifth part has similar contents to the sixth part and can be integrated."

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. In response to your suggestion, we have restructured the article and added content from parts 5 and 6. This adaptation improves the content of the article by eliminating redundancy and creating a more cohesive discussion, while allowing for a deeper exploration of the concepts covered in these sections. This adjustment improves the overall flow of the article and provides a clearer and more concise presentation of the main ideas.

8) Inclusion of bibliometric analysis results in the conclusion:
Reviewer: "The results of Bibliometric Analysis concerning the selection of methods in different geographical environments are not fully reflected in the conclusion of this paper."

Response: We appreciate your suggestion and have now included a discussion of the bibliometric analysis results in the conclusion, as recommended. This addition highlights how different geographical environments influence the selection of methods, providing a more comprehensive perspective on the study's findings. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have corrected the text of the article in accordance with suggestions, which has significantly improved its quality. No comments.