Maintenance Supplier Evaluation and Selection for Safe and Sustainable Production in the Chemical Industry: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
please have a look to the comments on the pdf
In particular please revise the introduction to your work...that is of interest but it is not well posed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied them carefully and have made substantial revision in the updated version. The following are reply to you.
Point 1: please have a look to the comments on the pdf. In particular, please revise the introduction to your work...that is of interest but it is not well posed.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and your affirmation, we have studied comments on the pdf carefully and have made correction. Especially, we have revised and improved the introduction according to your comments. You can find them in the updated version or in the responses as follows.
Point 2: Major risk installations are defined on the basis of the quantity of dangerous substances stored, manipulated and/or produced, not on the basis of the process conditions.
Response 2: We have revised the sentence “As the production process of chemical sector is characterized by high temperature, high pressure, inflammability, explosion and pollution, it is recognized as a high-risk industry in the world.” to “Nowadays, under the trend of equipment maintenance service outsourcing in chemical companies, reasonable selection of maintenance suppliers with safe and sustainable records come first and foremost in the supplier selection process.”(line 6-9)
Point 3: This assumption comes from an uncomplete literature research. and in general is not correct. Please erase this. This comment does not means that the work is not useful...because any new methodology is welcome!
Response 3: We have erased the sentence “However, scholars mainly focus on the textile, automotive, electrical-electronics and other general manufacturing industries for supplier selection and evaluation, and ignore that the chemical industry attaches great importance to safe production, technical professionalism and service standardization.” The chemical industry attaches great importance to to safe production, technical professionalism and service standardization. However, these concerns from the chemical industry are currently inadequately addressed by most general supplier selection models.” (line 9-11)
Point 4: This sentence is unclear.
Response 4: The sentence “By combining the general supplier selection criteria and risk prevention characteristics together” was been revised to “we established an evaluation criteria framework for equipment maintenance supplier by combining the general supplier selection criteria and safe production characteristics together in chemical industry.” (line 14-16)
Point 5: I do not agree with this sentence. Not all the chemical industry is highly dangerous.
Response 5: The sentence “As the chemical industry is highly dangerous” was been revised to “As the production of most chemical industry is highly dangerous and could potentially cause irreversible environmental and health damage to the public”. (line 29-30)
Point 6: This are some of the reference accident...not all of them. I suggest to revise the list on the basis of the causes of the accidents, that should be related to the subject of the paper. And maybe some Chinese accident could be of interest.
Response 6: We have revised the accident list on the basis of the causes. And we have added Chinese accident according to your great suggestion. The sentence was been changed into “For example, in the Bhopal catastrophe, an explosion in the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant resulted in about 575,000 deaths in 1984. The main reason for this catastrophe was the negligence of maintenance workers. In 2013, owing to the improper safety management of hazardous chemicals, the devastating explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas, America killed 35 people, and left 60 missing and injured about 200. In 2018, it was due to the irresponsibility of maintenance contractor's equipment safety that 9 people were killed and 2 were injured in the gas poisoning accident during the maintenance of the thermal power boiler in Guizou, China.” (line 34-40)
Point 7: This sentence is unclear.
Response 7: The sentence “general supplier selection criteria are ill fitted for key decision makers within the chemical industry” was been revised to “general supplier selection criteria are not suitable for decision makers in chemical industry”.(line 49-50)
Point 8: This is not true. Technical standards are available, guidelines, and specific procedures within safety management systems...the authors should extend their literature review.
Response 8: We have extended the literature review. The sentence “Scholars all over the world have few studies on supplier selection of chemical enterprises with high-risk attributes; chemical enterprises are still in the process of exploration.” Was been revised to “In addition, when it comes to the safety management of maintenance service, technical standards, guidelines, and specific procedures are available from previous study. Kumar et al.[6] established maintenance performance metrics. Singh et al.[7] ranked barriers for effective maintenance by using TOPSIS approach. Di Bona et al.[8-9] proposed maintenance strategy design and a new method for risk assessment. However, there is no specific index system and effective method for the selection of maintenance suppliers in the chemical industry, which means researches on chemical enterprises in this area are still under exploration.”(line 50-56)
Point 9: P.roblem Description
Response 9: We have changed it into “Problem Description”. (line 153)
Point 10: Why triangular?
Response 10: The reason why we use Triangular fuzzy numbers is that its ease in terms of usage and calculations, and we have added it in line 194-195.
Thank you for your useful comments again, and we hope to meet with your approval.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied them carefully and have made substantial revision in the updated version. The following are reply to you.
Point 1: please have a look to the comments on the pdf. In particular, please revise the introduction to your work...that is of interest but it is not well posed.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and your affirmation, we have studied comments on the pdf carefully and have made correction. Especially, we have revised and improved the introduction according to your comments. You can find them in the updated version or in the responses as follows.
Point 2: Major risk installations are defined on the basis of the quantity of dangerous substances stored, manipulated and/or produced, not on the basis of the process conditions.
Response 2: We have revised the sentence “As the production process of chemical sector is characterized by high temperature, high pressure, inflammability, explosion and pollution, it is recognized as a high-risk industry in the world.” to “Nowadays, under the trend of equipment maintenance service outsourcing in chemical companies, reasonable selection of maintenance suppliers with safe and sustainable records come first and foremost in the supplier selection process.”(line 6-9)
Point 3: This assumption comes from an uncomplete literature research. and in general is not correct. Please erase this. This comment does not means that the work is not useful...because any new methodology is welcome!
Response 3: We have erased the sentence “However, scholars mainly focus on the textile, automotive, electrical-electronics and other general manufacturing industries for supplier selection and evaluation, and ignore that the chemical industry attaches great importance to safe production, technical professionalism and service standardization.” The chemical industry attaches great importance to to safe production, technical professionalism and service standardization. However, these concerns from the chemical industry are currently inadequately addressed by most general supplier selection models.” (line 9-11)
Point 4: This sentence is unclear.
Response 4: The sentence “By combining the general supplier selection criteria and risk prevention characteristics together” was been revised to “we established an evaluation criteria framework for equipment maintenance supplier by combining the general supplier selection criteria and safe production characteristics together in chemical industry.” (line 14-16)
Point 5: I do not agree with this sentence. Not all the chemical industry is highly dangerous.
Response 5: The sentence “As the chemical industry is highly dangerous” was been revised to “As the production of most chemical industry is highly dangerous and could potentially cause irreversible environmental and health damage to the public”. (line 29-30)
Point 6: This are some of the reference accident...not all of them. I suggest to revise the list on the basis of the causes of the accidents, that should be related to the subject of the paper. And maybe some Chinese accident could be of interest.
Response 6: We have revised the accident list on the basis of the causes. And we have added Chinese accident according to your great suggestion. The sentence was been changed into “For example, in the Bhopal catastrophe, an explosion in the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant resulted in about 575,000 deaths in 1984. The main reason for this catastrophe was the negligence of maintenance workers. In 2013, owing to the improper safety management of hazardous chemicals, the devastating explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas, America killed 35 people, and left 60 missing and injured about 200. In 2018, it was due to the irresponsibility of maintenance contractor's equipment safety that 9 people were killed and 2 were injured in the gas poisoning accident during the maintenance of the thermal power boiler in Guizou, China.” (line 34-40)
Point 7: This sentence is unclear.
Response 7: The sentence “general supplier selection criteria are ill fitted for key decision makers within the chemical industry” was been revised to “general supplier selection criteria are not suitable for decision makers in chemical industry”.(line 49-50)
Point 8: This is not true. Technical standards are available, guidelines, and specific procedures within safety management systems...the authors should extend their literature review.
Response 8: We have extended the literature review. The sentence “Scholars all over the world have few studies on supplier selection of chemical enterprises with high-risk attributes; chemical enterprises are still in the process of exploration.” Was been revised to “In addition, when it comes to the safety management of maintenance service, technical standards, guidelines, and specific procedures are available from previous study. Kumar et al.[6] established maintenance performance metrics. Singh et al.[7] ranked barriers for effective maintenance by using TOPSIS approach. Di Bona et al.[8-9] proposed maintenance strategy design and a new method for risk assessment. However, there is no specific index system and effective method for the selection of maintenance suppliers in the chemical industry, which means researches on chemical enterprises in this area are still under exploration.”(line 50-56)
Point 9: P.roblem Description
Response 9: We have changed it into “Problem Description”. (line 153)
Point 10: Why triangular?
Response 10: The reason why we use Triangular fuzzy numbers is that its ease in terms of usage and calculations, and we have added it in line 194-195.
Thank you for your useful comments again, and we hope to meet with your approval.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research is very interisting.
Please improve english and references, e.g.:
- Maintenance strategy design in a sintering plant based on a multicriteria approach G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, D. Falcone International Journal of Management and Decision Making 2018 Vol. 17(1), pp. 29-49
- Total Efficient Risk Priority Number (TERPN): a new method for risk assessment G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, A Silvestri, A.Petrillo Journal of Risk Research
Volume 21, Issue 11, 2 November 2018, Pages 1384-1408
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank very much you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied them carefully and have made substantial revision for the manuscript, as is shown in the updated version. The following are reply to you.
Point 1: The research is very interesting. Please improve English and references, e.g.: - Maintenance strategy design in a sintering plant based on a multicriteria approach G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, D. Falcone International Journal of Management and Decision Making 2018 Vol. 17(1), pp. 29-49
- Total Efficient Risk Priority Number (TERPN): a new method for risk assessment G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, A Silvestri, A.Petrillo Journal of Risk Research. Volume 21, Issue 11, 2 November 2018, Pages 1384-1408
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and your affirmation. We have improved English by an English native speaker and we also have revised the manuscript carefully. We have improved some of the references and have used references that you recommended in line 53-54.
Thank you again, and we hope to meet with your approval.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely.
Reviewer 3 Report
Clarify what do the authors mean by "national economy" in the abstract.
Data on China in the introduction taken from the CMAI should be referenced.
I recommend to make more explicit the methodology used to define the final list of criteria to be used in the assessment. How did the consistency of the criteria have been tested? which type of approach (focus group, interviews, surveys, etc.?)
Is it always needed to have all the factors? How did the analyst select the most relevant one for the case study at hand. in line 252-253 it seems there is a selection approach, but it is not detailed how it should work.
It should be clarified the definition of the fuzzy rules and membership function. This part of a fuzzy TOPSIS approach is often the trickier part since it requires approximation, and subject matter experts. How did the authors manage the info to arrive at a final list of membership function which can be considered reliable. Please clarify the proposed strategy and the process to verify its reliability.
About the case study, more data on the 4 experts would be necessary (experience, age, etc).
Which is the minimum/maximum/recommended number of experts to consider the methodology as relevant?
The paper so far just details a mechanical application of the approach but it does not provide critical comments on the results. For example a sensitivity analysis to understand which factors majorly contribute to the overall value would be required.
overall the paper is interesting, but it is excessively too vague to be considered acceptable for publication. Further details on the methodology and on the case study are required.
Typo in §2 P.roblem Description
Clarify line 252-253, I guess there may be a language issue.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. Those comments are very professional and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction in the updated version. We have explained point-by-point the details of the revisions on the Word.We hope to meet with your approval.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
the revisions improved the quality of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and affirmation, we have made further improvements in English language style and have made minor revisions by editor's comments. Hope to meet with your approval.
Best wishes,
yours sincerely.
