Approaches to Performance Assessment in Reverse Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors of the article

The following can be checked: 1- Research innovation should be clearly defined. 2- The volume of articles used for review is limited and it is recommended to increase the database. 3- It is recommended to talk about evaluation models and see them in the classification of indicators.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors of the article

The following can be checked: 1- Research innovation should be clearly defined. 2- The volume of articles used for review is limited and it is recommended to increase the database. 3- It is recommended to talk about evaluation models and see them in the classification of indicators.

Answer letter

Thank you for your considerations that create an opportunity for improvement in the text. All highlighted points have been addressed as much as possible, as enumerated below:

1 - The contribution was highlighted in the abstract (lines 4-11) and in the introduction (lines 125-135);

2 - The database found is compatible with the scope and search strings. Other similar research has found around the same number of articles, as reported in the introduction (lines 118-125);

3 - As better highlighted in the abstract and introduction, the scope of the research does not include discussing the evolution of models and their indicators beyond what is presented in section 3.1 (Brief bibliometric analysis). The objective of the research was to identify the different perspectives of models disseminated in the literature, through the observation of their indicators and metrics, thus provoking a reflection on the alignment of these approaches with the objectives that support decision-making.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear, Author

The paper has been discussed about the Reverse Supply Chain (RSC) network. The literature review conducted various elements of reverse logistics and waste management. But in this model, there are lack of explanations about the main contribution. So, the paper has the major revisions before the acceptance in the following.

1.       Rewrite the abstract along with proper justification

2.       Add the recent updated papers which are related with this model.

 

3.       Properly discuss the managerial insights.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear, Author

The paper has been discussed about the Reverse Supply Chain (RSC) network. The literature review conducted various elements of reverse logistics and waste management. But in this model, there are lack of explanations about the main contribution. So, the paper has the major revisions before the acceptance in the following.

1. Rewrite the abstract along with proper justification
2. Add the recent updated papers which are related with this model.

 

3. Properly discuss the managerial insights.

 

Answer letter

Thank you for your feedback which creates an opportunity for improvement in the text. All highlighted points have been addressed as much as possible, as enumerated below:

1 - The justification was emphasized in the abstract (lines 4-11) and in the introduction (lines 125-135).

2 - As better highlighted in the abstract and introduction, the scope of the research does not include discussing the evolution of models and their indicators beyond what is presented in section 3.1 (Brief bibliometric analysis). The objective of the research was to identify the different perspectives of models disseminated in the literature, through the observation of their indicators and metrics, thus provoking a reflection on the alignment of these approaches with the objectives that support decision-making. Therefore, it is not a proposal of a model. It is a previous step where we must reflect on the alignment of the chosen or elaborated model with the managerial objectives of the managers.

3 - For the purpose of improving the discussion, section 4 (Discussion) has been added which addresses all insights.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to explore 

Approaches in Performance Assessment in Reverse Supply Chains: A systematic literature review. Although the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings. The manuscript know lacks in scientific style and structure.

First of all, paper research gap. Please improve this part in introduction section. Introduction is very general and lacked alignment to the research findings, no discussion was provided to derive the implication from. Theoretical and pragmatics implication are vague and need to be better aligned with this paper theoretical underpinnings and proposed process. Furthermore, there is insufficient support and weak arguments in support of the objective that is proposed as well as the model developed. In the final part of the introduction the objectives proposed, originality and gap that would be better covered. Also how the author will perform the methodology.

 

the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings

What is the originality of this research?  Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature. Limitations and future research

Questions to be answered:

What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the proposed model. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to explore 

Approaches in Performance Assessment in Reverse Supply Chains: A systematic literature review. Although the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings. The manuscript know lacks in scientific style and structure.

First of all, paper research gap. Please improve this part in introduction section. Introduction is very general and lacked alignment to the research findings, no discussion was provided to derive the implication from. Theoretical and pragmatics implication are vague and need to be better aligned with this paper theoretical underpinnings and proposed process. Furthermore, there is insufficient support and weak arguments in support of the objective that is proposed as well as the model developed. In the final part of the introduction the objectives proposed, originality and gap that would be better covered. Also how the author will perform the methodology.

the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings

What is the originality of this research?  Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature. Limitations and future research.

Questions to be answered:

What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the proposed model. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Answer letter

Thank you for your considerations that create an opportunity for improvement in the text. All highlighted points were addressed as much as possible, as enumerated below:

1 - As better highlighted in the abstract and introduction (lines 125-135), the scope of the research does not encompass discussing the evolution of models and their indicators beyond what is presented in section 3.1 (Brief bibliometric analysis). The aim of the research was to identify the different perspectives of models disseminated in the literature, through the observation of their indicators and metrics, thus provoking a reflection on the alignment of these approaches with the objectives that support decision-making. Therefore, it is not a proposal for a model. It is a previous step where we must reflect on the alignment of the chosen or elaborated model with the managerial objectives of managers.

2 - The considerations regarding the introduction were included in lines 125-135;

3 - As suggested, a discussion section was added (4. Discussion);

4 - In the conclusion, which was modified (5. - lines 445-468), the study's limitations, practical and theoretical implications based on the results found, as well as proposals for future studies, are discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Author mentioned "performance", how the performance is evaluated in this article?

2. few questions were raised in the introduction section, last paragraph. 

they were not answered properly?

3.  Research methodology is not clear it should be in diagram form to represent the flow of research,

4. Result and analysis section is also not clear.

5. Research gap is also not clear.

6. plz define the terms properly.

7. add the following to enhance the literature and application of work:

take an idea also from the mentioned below article to redraft the complete article.

-Antecedents and consequences of blockchain adoption in supply chains: a systematic literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, (ahead-of-print). 

- Blockchain Technology in Agriculture for Indian Farmers: A Systematic Literature Review, Challenges, and Solutions. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine, 8(4), 36-43.

-Proliferation of opportunistic routing: a systematic JOUR. IEEE access.

-Supply chain design during product development: a systematic literature review. Production Planning & Control, 34(1), 1-18.

-  Imbiri, S., Rameezdeen, R., Chileshe, N., & Statsenko, L. (2023). Risk propagation and resilience in the agribusiness supply chain: a systematic literature review. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, (ahead-of-print).

Author Response

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Author mentioned "performance", how the performance is evaluated in this article?
2. few questions were raised in the introduction section, last paragraph. 

they were not answered properly?

3. Research methodology is not clear it should be in diagram form to represent the flow of research,
4. Result and analysis section is also not clear.
5. Research gap is also not clear.
6. plz define the terms properly.
7. add the following to enhance the literature and application of work:

take an idea also from the mentioned below article to redraft the complete article.

 

Answer letter

Thank you for your feedback that creates an opportunity for text improvement. All highlighted points were addressed as much as possible, as enumerated below:

1 - As better highlighted in the abstract and introduction (lines 125-135), the scope of the research does not encompass discussing the evolution of models and their indicators beyond what is presented in section 3.1 (Brief bibliometric analysis). The research objective was to identify the different perspectives of models disseminated in the literature, through the observation of their indicators and metrics, thus provoking a reflection on the alignment of these approaches with the objectives that support decision-making. Therefore, it is not a proposal for a model. It is a previous step where we must reflect on the alignment of the chosen or developed model with the managerial objectives of the managers.

2 - According to the understanding of these authors, the research questions are robust enough for a literature review. Such questions are found at the end of the introduction section and were duly answered through the steps described in section 2 (Research Method).

3 - A diagram was included in section 2 (Research Method).

4 - Section 4 was included for these discussions.

5 - The identified gaps are in section 5.

7 - We considered that the suggested articles do not adhere to the scope defined in the introduction "The research objective was to identify the different perspectives of models disseminated in the literature, through the observation of their indicators and metrics, thus provoking a reflection on the alignment of these approaches with the objectives that support decision-making. Therefore, it is not a proposal for a model. It is a previous step where we must reflect on the alignment of the chosen or developed model with the managerial objectives of the managers."

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Greetings and Regards Corrections have been made. Good luck

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Add at least five recent updated papers which are related with this model.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The following references have been added:

14. TAJABADI, Z. F., DANESHVAR, S. Benchmark Approach for Efficiency Improvement in Green Supply Chain Management with DEA Models. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4433.
15. SANTANDER, P., SANCHEZ, F. A. C., BOUDAOUD, H., CAMARGO, M. Social, political, and technological dimensions of the sustainability evaluation of a recycling network. A literature review. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2022, 6, 100397.
16. MATHIYAZHAGAN, K., RAJAK, S., PANIGRAHI, S. S., AGARWAL, V., Reverse supply chain management in manufacturing industry: a systematic review. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 2021, v. 70, n. 4, p. 859-892.
17. TENNAKOON, G.A., RAMEEZDEEN, R., CHILESHE, N. Diverting demolition waste toward secondary markets through integrated reverse logistics supply chains: A systematic literature review. Waste Management and Research 2022. V. 40, n. 3, p. 274 – 293.

     44.         Zheng, H.; Li, X.; Zhu, X.; Huang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Li, C. Impact of Recycler Information Sharing on Supply Chain Performance of Construction and Demolition Waste Resource Utilization. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, v. 19, 3878.

Reviewer 3 Report

congratulations, your work is now better. Before being accepted for publication, I ask you to insert literature that more supports the need for your study, and explain the contribution of your work to the literature and to companies.

Author Response

Inclusions have been made in the text in two sections: section 1. Introduction, lines 131 to 150; section 4. Discussion, lines 444 to 448.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The author has to justify the outcome of the work only preparing the summary is not sufficient enough. provide the novelty.

2. figure 1 is not clear, it should be redrawn.

3. what is the significance of bibliography analysis?

4. where the solution of the objectives is mentioned in the introduction section.

5. The author should take a reference of an already published Systematic review for better representation.

 

 

Author Response

1. The author has to justify the outcome of the work only preparing the summary is not sufficient enough. provide the novelty.

The proposed novelty pertains to the identification of different perspectives intrinsic to performance evaluation models in RSC according to the literature view. Authors such as Tajabadi and Daneshvar (2023), Santander et al. (2022), Mathiyazhagan et al. (2020) and Agrawal et al. (2020), highlighted the importance of understanding dimensions as justification for their own solutions, but they did not seek to comprehend the various dimensions already addressed in the current literature. Filling this gap was our contribution.

2. figure 1 is not clear, it should be redrawn.

Due to the fact that the figure was sourced from another work and its interpretation is solely based on a list of typical activities in RSC as identified by the authors of that figure, we have decided to exclude the figure and keep only the accompanying list of activities. This approach ensures clarity in reading and minimizes any potential confusion. It is important to note that the omission of the figure itself will not hinder the comprehension of the text. However, should readers wish to delve deeper into the topic, they are encouraged to consult the original source for additional information.

3. what is the significance of bibliography analysis?

Bibliography analysis holds great significance because plays a crucial role in academic research by assisting researchers in finding relevant sources, evaluating their credibility, understanding the historical context of ideas, building on existing research, and adhering to proper citation practices. Additional information can be found in section 1. Introduction, lines 149 to 150.

4. where the solution of the objectives is mentioned in the introduction section.

Inclusions were made in the text in section 1. Introduction, lines 167 to 177.

5. The author should take a reference of an already published Systematic review for better representation

The research was guided by TRANFIELD, D. et al. (2003) for the systematic literature review, and in the more specific context of the research scope, Agrawal et al. (2020) and Mathiyazhagan et al. (2021) were considered.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Paper is fine now