Functional Model of Supply Chain Waste Reduction and Control Strategies for Retailers—The USA Retail Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research problem addressed in the manuscript is intriguing; however, the author's presentation lacks precision. The work is notably deficient in data analysis, interpretation, and scientific rigor. From my perspective, the research falls short of meeting the criteria for publication in the journal. It is essential for the author to refine the problem statement, incorporate hypothesis testing, provide thorough justification, and draw conclusive findings. The manuscript currently lacks significant contributions to the field. I strongly recommend rejecting the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: at the end of the Abstract, the authors could highlight the contributions of the study.

Introduction: I missed a better delimitation of the research problem. Furthermore, the authors could use some more current references.

Methodology: there is a lack of a better description of the procedures related to data collection, analysis and interpretation and, mainly, whether the proposed Framework (Figure 1) was in any way validated and, if so, how?

Attention: Figure 1 (Proposed Framework, page 12) is presented after Figures 2 ("Fig. 2, page 7") and 2 ("Fig. 3, page 10"). This must be adjusted.

Future Trends and Innovations: recommendations ("5.2. Recommendations", page 14) are very interesting. However, it would be pertinent to address something about supply chain resilience and risk mitigation in the investigated context.

Conclusions: "research limitations" and the possibility of "development of future studies" could be included, expanding the discussion presented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A general review of the text and formatting of the paper could be carried out.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses attached and corresponding line included to track changes

(Please see attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Working Model of Supply Chain Waste Control and Reduction Strategies for Retailers - The US Retail Industry

 

The topic is relevant and current.

The summary contains the necessary information. I could have explored the main results a little more.

Introduction

Describes the research gap and clearly presents the objectives of the study. I suggest removing Table 1. Structure of the research article and inserting the information from the table into a paragraph.

 

In line 180 of the theoretical framework, he cites Figure 1. I only found figure 1 on page 12. However, figure 2 appears on page 7. Figure 3 on page 10.

 

Page 253 the source was not indicated in the sections:

 

• Evidence from the United States Census Bureau:

 

• Consequences of excess inventory:

Lines 343 to 356 require an indication of the source.

 

2. Prediction errors (line 414): indicate the source

4.3. Strategies to Eliminate Supply Chain Waste in the U.S. Retail Industry

4.3.1 Lean Principles and Waste Reduction: Adjust subtitles

4.3.2 Inventory Management and Optimization: Follow the other sub-items

 

In the analysis, I missed a figure or table representing the model promised in lines 62 to 64 copied below:

 

Propose the model on various control strategies that the United States retail 62 industry could adopt to ensure waste reduction and control in the supply 63 chain and improve efficiency.

 

6. Conclusions

I recommend returning to the objectives and describing the results found.

Bring the limitations of the study

Propose future studies based on gaps not filled by this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Text is well written. Small writing adjustments needed.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Undoubtedly, the study is dedicated to a very current topic, namely - waste reduction and control. The objectives of the research are set very correctly. The methodology meets the requirement of writing this kind of article. The literature review is extensive and up-to-date for its time.

Questions related to the theory of supply chain management are touched upon, the types of waste are classified, and the reasons for the increase in waste along the chain are indicated. Waste elimination strategies are clarified.

At the end of the article, future trends and innovations related to waste reduction are proposed.

My questions are:

In recommendation 2, you say "Make data-driven decisions", an excellent suggestion, but do you think small traders have the time to collect data?

In another recommendation you mention "recycling" - Where does recycling fit in the supply chain? Maybe that's an idea for a next article!

Conclusion: I believe that the objective of the study has been achieved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The adjustment recommendations requested in the previous evaluation were considered.