An Integrated Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Collection Modes Selection in Remanufacturing Reverse Logistics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with the very important area of reverse logistics and reverse manufacturing. The article presents the integration of AHP and TOPSIS to select the most suitable RL provider.
In the article, I mainly emphasize its usefulness in solving the problems of selecting the most suitable solution in the company.
However, I have the following suggestions or comments to improve the comprehensibility of the article:
- in subsection 3.2.1, step1 you wrote: "..., data is usually collected through a questionnaire. " Could we use focus groups or experts, for example?
Why use a 9 point scale? Is a Likert scale of 1 to 5 not enough?
- subsection 4.1: I suggest that the AHP and TOPSIS process be presented in the same systematic way as in the methodology (subchapters 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).
- subchapter 4.2: the first paragraph is incomprehensible (what are the different modes, perhaps the patterns in Figure 2? Can you write the first paragraph so that it is understandable?
- What do the abbreviations MT, TPT, RT in Figure 2 and Tables 6 to 9 mean?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the introduction, while there is introduced information on cost-benefit from remanufacturing the reference is missing. (lines: 43-46)
Line 51: there is a mistake as there is written „remanufacturer (TPR) remanufacturing”
In section 2.1 there is missing a summary of advantages and disadvantages of existing methods what would confirm the validity of MCDM METHOD, USED IN THIS STUDY.
The proposed research framework for RL provider selection presented in Fig. 1 is pointless, as the same information is included in the text. It would be valuable if You add some additional information like a used method, technique or achieved results.
Lines 174-176: this statement is not clear. Please correct it
Evaluation criteria of RL provider selection presented in section 3.1 are relevant for this study but this requires more in-depth literature research which would be a justification for selecting these particular attributes that have been used in the study.
In section: 4.1 Application of AHP, there is a missing description of e research, namely time, size of a group of surveyed people.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
