Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Electrifying the Last-Mile Logistics (LML) in Intensive B2B Operations—An European Perspective on Integrating Innovative Platforms

Logistics 2024, 8(2), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8020045

by Alejandro Sanz^1,* and Peter Meyer²

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Oliver F. Shyr

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Reviewer 6: Anonymous

Logistics 2024, 8(2), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8020045

Submission received: 14 January 2024 / Revised: 26 March 2024 / Accepted: 7 April 2024 / Published: 17 April 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Its Application in Sustainable Smart Logistics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

· Discuss more the various issues related to technical feasibility

· Better clarify how the Authors selected the key variables and which sources were used

· There are dfferent possible configurations. Especially with respect to last-mile logistics, it is important to underline the relevance of stakeholders’ acceptability and participatory planning. I suggest mentioning these issues (please relate to: 1&2 for the former and 3&4 for the latter)

· A sensitivity analysis would definitely enrich the robustness of the results reported in the paper

1 - Gatta, V., Marcucci, E., Le Pira, M., Scaccia, L., Delle Site, P. (2018). Willingness to pay measures to tailor policies and foster stakeholder acceptability in urban freight transport. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF REGIONAL SCIENCE, 17(3), 351-370

2 - Marcucci E, Stathopoulos A, Gatta V, Valeri E (2012). A Stated Ranking Experiment to Study Policy Acceptance: The Case of Freight Operators in Rome’s LTZ. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF REGIONAL SCIENCE, vol. 11, p. 11-30

3 - Le Pira, M., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G. (2023). Participatory decision-support tools for stakeholder engagement in urban freight transport policy making. In. Marcucci et al., (Eds), “Handbook on city logistics and urban freight”, Edward Elgar, pp. 327-345.

4 - Marcucci, E., Gatta V., Le Pira M. (2020). New trends in urban freight transport: how stakeholder engagement can favour the adoption of sustainable solutions. In: Awasthi A. (a cura di), “Sustainable City Logistics Planning”, Chapter 2, p. 35-60. Nova Science Publishers, New York

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is acceptable but could be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review the manuscript. It help us to improve the delivery quality of this research and make it more relevant to readers and other scholars.

The main changes in this version of the article that we are submitting to your consideration, the main changes are:

a) In the introduction section we have added the references indicated by one of the reviewers plus others (for a total of additional 19 references) in order to properly ground / anchor the focal point of this research but to also set its limits. A new Figure 1 has been added. The introduction now shows in a more robust way the research gaps that the current draft-publication is addressing.

b) We have added a sensitivity analysis regarding the MSP offers. Instead of presenting 9 separated sensitivity tables, we have run a transversal sensitivity analysis using the Low-Normal-High variation in the input variables applied to all cases. A new table is presented with the results and they are properly discussed. In the result section .

c) We have divided some tables into smaller tables (Table 7 is now Table 7 and Table 8) and we have streamlined the content of some tables (Table 8) and we have added an additional table (Table 11) highlighting the fundamental differences between operations and electricity supply to a logistic fleet versus the usual private user of and EV.

d) We have added references to corroborate the results in the discussion area to ground our findings and check with consistency with other scholars in the field.

The English quality of the newly added section of the paper has been reviewed by first using Grammarly Professional and then cross checking with a mother tongue English professor.

Regarding your specific notes and comments, please find herewith the relevant actions we took to act on them in order to improve the article:

There are dfferent possible configurations. Especially with respect to last-mile logistics, it is important to underline the relevance of stakeholders’ acceptability and participatory planning. I suggest mentioning these issues (please relate to: 1&2 for the former and 3&4 for the latter)
A sensitivity analysis would definitely enrich the robustness of the results reported in the paper

We have added a transversal sensitivity analysis for the MSP proposals. A new Table 10 shows the results that are then discussed in depth in the discussion section. This discussion part has required to add additional 5 references relevant for the analysis.

We have added these references plus several others (totaling 18 new references) to enrich the introduction section as well as to anchor and properly define the focus (and perimeter) of the current research covered in this paper. As a result, an additional Figure 1 has been added and discussed. An additional anchoring is provided by the new table 11 that clearly differentiate the operation and electricity supplying for a logistic fleet compared to private EVs.

We do appreciate the different interactions with the Journal and we can see the difference it makes in the quality of the manuscript. We can only submit it to your consideration hoping that we are getting closer to the high standards associated with your prestigious publication.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments given earlier have been addressed. So, I recommend the possible publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review the manuscript. It help us to improve the delivery quality of this research and make it more relevant to readers and other schollars.

The main changes in this version of the article that we are submitting to your consideration, the main changes are:

d) We have added references to corroborate the results in the discussion area to ground our findings and check with consistency with other scholars in the field.

The English quality of the newly added section of the paper has been reviewed by first using Grammarly Professional and then cross checking with a mother tongue English professor.

We have been working on every single comment and suggestion coming from all the reviewers. We first want to express our gratitude to all reviewers for their time reading the draft publication and for all the suggestions, corrections and advice. The article looks (as per the author´s point of view) a lot better and easy to read now than it was before the two revision rounds.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the paper is well-written. However, I have one question and one suggestion for the authors. First, I did not see any objective function or restrictions for the optimization problem, why? Second, some Tables seem to be too big to contain so much information. It is difficult for readers to fully understand the results. Can some of the big Tables be broken down into several smaller Tables?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review the manuscript. It help us to improve the delivery quality of this research and make it more relevant to readers and other scholars.

The main changes in this version of the article that we are submitting to your consideration, the main changes are:

d) We have added references to corroborate the results in the discussion area to ground our findings and check with consistency with other scholars in the field.

The English quality of the newly added section of the paper has been reviewed by first using Grammarly Professional and then cross checking with a mother tongue English professor.

To your specific comments and suggestions, we took actions along the following lines :

The revised version of the paper is well-written. However, I have one question and one suggestion for the authors. First, I did not see any objective function or restrictions for the optimization problem, why? We have modified the introduction section and the abstract of the article in order to make clear the objective and restriction of the article. We hope it is clearer now.

Second, some Tables seem to be too big to contain so much information. It is difficult for readers to fully understand the results. Can some of the big Tables be broken down into several smaller Tables? We agreed and, where possible, we have acted according to Reviewer 3. Namely we have divided table 7 into two tables (7 and 8). The former dealing with the overall fleet and logistic performance (independent of the vehicle platform) and the latter focused on the differences in the cost structure for the ICE vs EV solutions for the last mile logistics. We have removed from the former table 8 (now table 9) some elements that were redundant with the new table 8 to facilitate the readability of the tables. We created a separated table 10 for the sensitivity analysis instead of overcrowding the table 9.

We have been working on every single comment and suggestion coming from all the reviewers. We , again, want to express our gratitude to all reviewers for their time reading the draft publication and for all the suggestions, corrections and advice. The article looks (as per the author´s point of view) a lot better and easy to read now than it was before the two revision rounds.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have approached the justification of the selected variables with exceptional meticulousness, as presented in Tables 3 and 4. However, the significant volume of variables necessitates their classification consolidation. It is suggested that the authors amalgamate the variables into several groups describing their specificity in Table 3. This will enhance the systematic perception of the variables.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review the manuscript. It help us to improve the delivery quality of this research and make it more relevant to readers and other scholars.

The main changes in this version of the article that we are submitting to your consideration, the main changes are:

d) We have added references to corroborate the results in the discussion area to ground our findings and check with consistency with other scholars in the field.

The English quality of the newly added section of the paper has been reviewed by first using Grammarly Professional and then cross checking with a mother tongue English professor.

As per your specific suggestions, advice and indications, we have act on them along the following lines:

We have provided a two grouping coloring of the cells in table 4 (fleet operation variables and electrification variables). We have followed the same logic when splitting former Table 7 into new Table 7 (fleet operation) and new Table 8 (electrification variables).

In the same spirit of amalgamating the analysis we have conducted a sensitivity analysis for the MSP proposals. Instead of adding 9 sensitivity analysis (what-if tables) we used a transversal Low-Normal-High scenario across all the different vendor propositions and added a dedicated discussion session.

We have also added a new Table 11 that summarizes the differentiators between a charging infrastructure providing electricity to third private parties versus an owned charging infrastructure supporting a high frequency logistic operation.

We have been working on every single comment and suggestion coming from the reviewers. We first want to express our gratitude to all reviewers for their time reading the draft publication and for all the suggestions, corrections and advice. The article looks (as per the author´s point of view) a lot better and easy to read now than it was before the two revision rounds.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors aim to identify if the electrification of LML is economically viable in a European context and if the use of Mobility Service Provider (MSP) cloud software can influence the profitability of of LML.

Some suggestions to consider when reviewing this paper:

- In the abstract, the study's purpose, methodology, and obtained results must be clearly highlighted.

- The first part of the article should be divided into two sections: Introduction and Literature Review.

- In the "Introduction" section, present the decision-making issue, the research purpose, define the main and secondary objectives of your research. Identify and present the existing problems that have led to the two decision-making issues – lines 93-94

- RQ1: Is electrification of LML economically viable in a European context?

- RQ2: What is the rationale for using Mobility Service Provider (MSP) cloud software, and how does it impact the profitability of LML?

- Introduce a paragraph related to the scientific and practical contributions brought by your study.

- Do not forget to introduce the organizational structure of the article by sections.

- The "2 Materials and Methods" section includes various and complex information. To make the understanding of this part more accessible, I recommend including more subsections. Your presented material is very complex and interesting, but it needs better organization in terms of presentation. Separate the part where you discuss the network of large national and regional depots from the part related to EV platforms and the level of services offered, and so on.

- The study results are presented clearly and concisely.

- In the "4. Discussion and conclusions" section, include more bibliographic sources whose results support/confirm your research findings.

- Introduce the limiting conditions related to your research and future directions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review the manuscript. It help us to improve the delivery quality of this research and make it more relevant to readers and other schollars.

The main changes in this version of the article that we are submitting to your consideration, the main changes are:

d) We have added references to corroborate the results in the discussion area to ground our findings and check with consistency with other scholars in the field.

The English quality of the newly added section of the paper has been reviewed by first using Grammarly Professional and then cross checking with a mother tongue English professor.

Regarding your specific suggestion, comments and notes, we have act on them along the following lines:

- In the abstract, the study's purpose, methodology, and obtained results must be clearly highlighted.

While maintaining the maximum length of the abstract, we have reconfigured it to introduce the aspects requested by the reviewer while still staying below the 150 words.

- The first part of the article should be divided into two sections: Introduction and Literature Review.

We have hesitate with this suggestion. We initially thought about adding subsections to the introduction section. We have reviewed all the paper that we cited from Logistics Journal as well as other that were not cited and all of them keep the prescribed structure and template of the journal. It is a signature in terms of styling and presentation of results. We have reinforced the literature review section with new references and an additional figure but we adhered to the Journal standards.

Good point. We have added them in the current version and they in line with context presented in article´s abstract.

- RQ1: Is electrification of LML economically viable in a European context?

- RQ2: What is the rationale for using Mobility Service Provider (MSP) cloud software, and how does it impact the profitability of LML?

- Introduce a paragraph related to the scientific and practical contributions brought by your study.

We have introduced (based on the request of reviewer 1 a more robust scientific justification of the research gaps. It grounds and anchors the focus of the current research (both in terms of scientific and practical context.

- Do not forget to introduce the organizational structure of the article by sections. done

The wealth and the challenge of the current article resides in the ability to access and exploit data/insights that otherwise are not available to both scholars and technologist. The challenge is to present the results and insights in a way that is readable and easy to follow. We have worked on splitting some tables and stream lining others to make the content less crowded and organized in an easier to follow structure. We have added figures where it was more convenient to summarize large bodies of information.

- The study results are presented clearly and concisely.

- In the "4. Discussion and conclusions" section, include more bibliographic sources whose results support/confirm your research findings.

We have follow your advice and add references to confirm the findings but also to highlight the new avenues of research that will be needed in the future. We have added 18 new references in the introduction and a similar number in the discussion section.

- Introduce the limiting conditions related to your research and future directions.

In addition to the modifications in the introduction section and the discussion section, we have added an specific paragraph dedicated to summarize the boundary conditions of the research and the new fields that it is bringing to the attention of the scholars and technologist in the e-LML in urban areas

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The focus of this article is the electrification of the last-mile logistics of the largest supply chain in the automotive aftermarket in Europe. The logistic operation expands, for this article, to France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Benelux.

The topic of the paper is interesting, but both the methodology and analysis are not presented clearly enough from a scientific point of view. Therefore, I believe that the article should be re-written with the main emphasis on presenting the scientific aspects. Especially since the scope of the problems is very wide and the current content makes it impossible to assess the scientific value of this paper.

- Abstract Section - too little text summarizing the content of the paper and too many research conclusions;

- Fig.1: drawing caption with a capital letter;

- lines 122-125, 226, 261, table 5., page 31, line 9 : what is the difference between the terms "light commercial vehicles", "micro vehicles", "micro EV vehicles", "micro-electric vehicles", "micro EV delivery platforms", "micro EV"? These terms need to be standardized because there is confusion now;

- page 4, line 147: "Business-to-Business (B2B)" - this extension should be earlier, i.e. in the place where the abbreviation "B2B" is used for the first time;

- page 24 "4. Discussion and conclusions": in this section there is a short description of Fig.6. However, the content of the description has no equivalent in the text in Fig.6. Where in Fig.6. are "three decision levels" shown? I suggest numbering the blocks of the diagram in Fig. 6 and using a description with reference to block numbers and connections between blocks. The diagram is also missing key variables, which are decision variables for decision blocks. The diagram is missing the "Stop" block and the condition that leads to this block.

- References items: 4, 17, 22, 25-28, 31-34, 42-44, 46-48, 78, 79 - these are only internet addresses; it's like saying that a particular book is on the third shelf from the top in the fifth rack of a library room; does such information describe the basic science of a specific piece of literature? Of course this information is tertiary; First, you must provide the author and title of the content, or owner of the content, publisher/publisher, and only then the Internet address;

- To sum up: The topic of the paper is interesting, but both the methodology and the analysis are not presented clearly enough from a scientific point of view. Therefore, I believe that the article should be re-written with the main emphasis on presenting the scientific aspects. Especially since the scope of the problems is very wide and the current content makes it impossible to assess the scientific value of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 6,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review the manuscript. It help us to improve the delivery quality of this research and make it more relevant to readers and other scholars.

The main changes in this version of the article that we are submitting to your consideration, the main changes are:

d) We have added references to corroborate the results in the discussion area to ground our findings and check with consistency with other scholars in the field.

The English quality of the newly added section of the paper has been reviewed by first using Grammarly Professional and then cross checking with a mother tongue English professor.

As per the specific comments, notes, suggestion from your review, we took action along the following lines:

Abstract Section - too little text summarizing the content of the paper and too many research conclusions;

We have rewritten the abstract. In its original form it had already 149 words (out of a maximum of 150). We have re-structured it completely. It now shows the data sourcing and conclusions in a sharper way (and still within the max word limits)

- Fig.1: drawing caption with a capital letter; Corrected

- lines 122-125, 226, 261, table 5., page 31, line 9 : what is the difference between the terms "light commercial vehicles", "micro vehicles", "micro EV vehicles", "micro-electric vehicles", "micro EV delivery platforms", "micro EV"? These terms need to be standardized because there is confusion now;

The reviewer is absolutely right. The problem is that the ambiguity related to vehicle classification is real and intrinsic to the logistic market. Even for light commercial vehicles (meaning smaller than a small truck) the classification is done by their length and height (from L1H1 to L3H3) but there is no standard whatsoever to define what the different ¨L¨ are or the different ¨H¨. We have tried to circumvent the intrinsic ambiguity by the use of the Table 1 and (mostly) Table 5 together with Figure 4 (now Figure 5) to provide some boundary conditions to the definitions (either in terms of battery size or freight capacity). In order to reinforce the reviewer request of clarity we have added the authors´s definition of what a micro vehicle might be:

The authors consider a micro vehicle any delivery platform with a freight capacity inferior to 250 kg. They could be ICE or EV. For the latter the authors consider a micro EV as a platform having a battery capacity of less than 10 kWh

- page 4, line 147: "Business-to-Business (B2B)" - this extension should be earlier, i.e. in the place where the abbreviation "B2B" is used for the first time; Corrected. The new B2B abbreviation is now in the first paragraph of the introduction

- page 24 "4. Discussion and conclusions": in this section there is a short description of Fig.6. However, the content of the description has no equivalent in the text in Fig.6. Where in Fig.6. are "three decision levels" shown? I suggest numbering the blocks of the diagram in Fig. 6 and using a description with reference to block numbers and connections between blocks. The diagram is also missing key variables, which are decision variables for decision blocks. The diagram is missing the "Stop" block and the condition that leads to this block.

The reviewer is partially correct. We have not put the stop blocks but send the flow diagram to its beginning. It could be interpreted either as a ¨think harder and start all over again¨ or STOP. The conditions for that stop are in the question diamonds in the diagram. As per the reviewer suggestion we have numbered the blocks. Some variables are missing (and are indicated either as not covered in this article or new R&D arena). The flow diagram shows the thinking process leading to a decision with the rigorous boundary condition of financial profitability, robustness and ability to satisfy the Service Level Agreement (SLA) expected (and demanded) by the customers. The latter was particularly complex due to the recharging-time associated with EVs. It is not a universal flow diagram but a fairly comprehensive one that was actually used in the real definition (with a large scale fleet) of the fleet/infrastructure (physical and digital) and logistic operations using EVs in the highly competitive automotive aftermarket in Europe.

- References items: 4, 17, 22, 25-28, 31-34, 42-44, 46-48, 78, 79 - these are only internet addresses; it's like saying that a particular book is on the third shelf from the top in the fifth rack of a library room; does such information describe the basic science of a specific piece of literature? Of course this information is tertiary; First, you must provide the author and title of the content, or owner of the content, publisher/publisher, and only then the Internet address;

We are a bit confused. We have checked the author´s instruction and web addresses are allowed provided that it is indicated when was the last time the site was visited by the authors. All websites are from relevant players and not expected to disappear. We have again revisited all of them now to verify their existence and consistently we have modified the last date of visiting them to March 2024. We do hope this is still a valid procedure for the Journal.

- To sum up: The topic of the paper is interesting, but both the methodology and the analysis are not presented clearly enough from a scientific point of view. Therefore, I believe that the article should be re-written with the main emphasis on presenting the scientific aspects. Especially since the scope of the problems is very wide and the current content makes it impossible to assess the scientific value of this paper.

We have significantly reinforced the introduction section with the research gaps and business needs defining the research that is presented in the current paper. We have rendered more robust the findings in the discussion sessions by adding more relevant references. We have added additional (sensitivity) analysis to the data (specifically related to the MSP offering). We have work the article to render the research focus clearer, setting the boundary conditions imposed on the process as well as clarifying the topics that were not part of the scope of research. We hope that the newly revised version better fits the reviewer expectation.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting topic which is the utilization of electric vehicles in the last mile logistics for the B2B market. However, the paper is subject to some serious shortcomings:

- Introduction is written poorly. I did not see the statement of the research scope/objectives. Moreover, I did not see the research gap(s) which your study is trying to solve.

- Data and method are so long while I did not catch when the data were collected.

- The results and discussions lack focus with various information presented. I could not see how your paper improved the understanding of electrifying last-mile logistics.

Overall, the manuscript is similar to a technical report rather than a scientific paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

Thanks for the time and comments made on the first submission of the article. We have taken all your reviews and comments into account and modify the paper accordingly. Specifically, we have rewritten the introduction with a clear indication of the bibliography gaps that the paper intends to approach. We have collected and review additional references. Based on those gaps, we have articulated the revised article around two main research questions supported by other three 3 sub-research questions.

This is not a technical report but the article has the uniqueness of being based on having direct, first hand, responsibility on an actual electrification of a very large European LML in the aftermarket sector.

We admit (and hope) that after having implemented your valid comments, the article clearer and easier to read/follow. The article also opens new future business models and logistics dynamics that are new both a novel research arena and a logistics opportunity.

As per the English level, both authors are proficient but not native speakers. Beside the corrections using the professional version of Grammarly, we have asked a native speaker university professor to review the the text and amend it. We think that the corrected version looks better but (as said) we are not native speakers.

The corrected paper will be resubmitted again via the channels indicated by the Journal. We do not know if you will be again a reviewer of the article or if it will be sent to another reviewer. We do appreciate your comments, and the time you took to help us improve the quality of the article. We think it brings novelty and fills a knowledge gap not yet covered by the literature.

Thank you again

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

We concord with your statement that the definition about the origin of the information and how it was collected / processed (to answer the research questions) required more clarity. Additional tables have been added as well as a flow diagram regarding the paper rationale. This should give a clearer and gradual view on how the information was collected/calculated in order to provide rigorous answers to the research question in line with the research scope.

The article has the uniqueness of being based on having direct, first hand, responsibility on an actual electrification of a very large European LML in the aftermarket sector. It provides insights that would otherwise be not available for the research community. The article uses that information to provide insights on the different trade-off and boundary conditions that ensure a viable (functionally and economically) transition to electric last mile logistics.

As per the English level, you did not mention specific corrections but other reviewers commented that English was OK although not exceptional. Both authors are English-proficient but not native speakers. Beside the corrections using the professional version of Grammarly, we have asked a native speaker university professor to review the the text and amend it. We think that the corrected version looks better but (as said) we are not native speakers.

The corrected paper will be resubmitted again via the channels indicated by the Journal. We do not know if you will be again a reviewer of the article or if it will be sent to another reviewer. We sincerely appreciate appreciate your comments, and the time you took to help us improve the quality of the article. We think it brings novelty and fills a knowledge gap not yet covered by the literature.

Thank you again

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper does NOT clearly state the research question. It does not provide a clear positioning of the contribution within the overall sceintific panorama thus it is not possible to clearly define the added value it provides to the current state of knowledege. Majot issues are not considered such as, for instance the time frame (long medium short tem horizon) the relevance of investment costs and organizational changes need.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok even if not exceptional

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

We concord with your statement related to the absence of the information about the investment levels and the time horizon associated with them (payback, organization and time costs). That was an unnecessary omission as the information and the analysis were available. We have therefore included the different tables and the analysis steps used to assess the investment impact (and its geographic variance) in the electrification process of the last mile logistics.

The number of the references has almost double. More important, they have being structured around research scope to properly answer the research questions and sub-questions.

We also agree that the definition about the origin of the information and how it was collected / processed (to answer the research questions) required more clarity. Additional tables have been added as well as a flow diagram regarding the paper rationale.

As per the English level, your statement that it was OK but not exceptional should be correct. Both authors are English proficient but not native speakers. Beside the corrections using the professional version of Grammarly, we have asked a native speaker university professor to review the the text and amend it. We think (from the non-native speaker perspective)that the corrected version looks better.

Thank you again

Article Menu

Electrifying the Last-Mile Logistics (LML) in Intensive B2B Operations—An European Perspective on Integrating Innovative Platforms

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI