Development of Modified SERVQUAL–MCDM Model for Quality Determination in Reverse Logistics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study introduced an original integrated model for measuring the service quality of reverse logis-tics (RL).
The Delphi and Full Con-sistency Method (FUCOM) were applied to determine the significance of the quality dimensions, while a modified SERVQUAL (SQ) model was used to measure the service quality of logistics.
The models were properly formulated and the results are tested using statistical analysis.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

This study introduced an original integrated model for measuring the service quality of reverse logistics (RL).

The Delphi and Full Consistency Method (FUCOM) were applied to determine the significance of the quality dimensions, while a modified SERVQUAL (SQ) model was used to measure the service quality of logistics.

The models were properly formulated and the results are tested using statistical analysis.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much for the positive review.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study developed the SERVQUAL-MCDM model for quality etermination in reverse logistics considering environmental impact. Considering environmental sustainability, it is a timely study when considering recent environmental issues. In this respect,'Table 2. SERVQUAL questionnaire' is very important in this study. The dimensions of Table 2 were appropriately selected. But Statements are open to rethinking. From the perspective of reverse logistics, including resource recycling, it is necessary to review whether the proposed statements are appropriate. Regardless of reverse logistics, it contains contents (Q6, Q13, Q21, etc.) corresponding to the general'waste collection' situation. Are there any reviews that need to be conducted prior to the establishment of the statements? It is necessary to select 21 statements, describe in detail the method and content reviewed, and provide the background for each content selection. Since the contents other than the statements correspond to statistical descriptions, it is expected that it would be better to revise the statements in more detail.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Thank you very much for the useful suggestions. We accepted all of the suggestions and we are sure that this will improve the quality and contribute to a better understanding of the paper.

This study developed the SERVQUAL-MCDM model for quality determination in reverse logistics considering environmental impact. Considering environmental sustainability, it is a timely study when considering recent environmental issues. In this respect,'Table 2. SERVQUAL questionnaire' is very important in this study. The dimensions of Table 2 were appropriately selected. But Statements are open to rethinking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: From the perspective of reverse logistics, including resource recycling, it is necessary to review whether the proposed statements are appropriate. Regardless of reverse logistics, it contains contents (Q6, Q13, Q21, etc.) corresponding to the general 'waste collection' situation. Are there any reviews that need to be conducted prior to the establishment of the statements? It is necessary to select 21 statements, describe in detail the method and content reviewed, and provide the background for each content selection. Since the contents other than the statements correspond to statistical descriptions, it is expected that it would be better to revise the statements in more detail.

Reply: You are absolute right. The questionnaire contains statements related to waste collection. The main focus of this research is determining quality in process of disposal and waste management in utility company Komunalac Teslić. Practically we have considered only one channel of reverse logistics. Below Table 2 we have added the following:

As we have mentioned in introduction, original SERVQUAL questionnaire contain of 21 statements used for the first time in the literature. The questionnaire has been formed based on the experiences of managers from the field of reverse logistics and the need of utility company Komunalac Teslić for which this research has been performed. It is important to note that this questionnaire contains statements mostly related to waste collection management. Bosnia and Herzegovina is very poor country from the aspect of full application of reverse logistics (reduce, reuse, recycle), so we are forced to consider only waste disposal as one of the channels of reverse logistics.

Revision of statement will mean that we should perform research again because we are sure that in that case, results will be different from existing. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to the Manuscript: 
1.    Section 1 – last paragraph „Apart from the introductory section, the paper is divided into six sections. In Section….” - I reccomend to avoid such descriptions in manuscript. The generall conclusion of introduction part should generally indicate what has been analysed in following work.
2.    Authors said "Wang et al. [22] showed that the SERVQUAL model was most used by researchers, and that the model significantly contributed to service quality research." - why the model was most significantly contributed?
3.    Description “Considering the ratings of expectations and quality perceptions, it is obvious that the number of ratings received has increased: for grade 1 from 189 to 195 (+6), for grade 2 from 291 to 324 (+33), for grade 3 from 236 to 297 (+61) and for grade 4 from 755 to 808 (+53), while the number of grades 5 given by users in terms of quality perception decreased from 881 to 728 (-153). In this way, it was shown that expectations were higher than the perceived RL quality” – The comments to the manuscript should show generall trends and on what does it affect. Describing from what value to which value something has increased it easy to read from data in tables.
4.    Figure 1. The quality and legend description of the paper should be improved
5.    Tables 8-10 – the results should be presented below the tables or Tables should be putted as the attachments of the following manuscript. 
6.    The information in part 6. discussion should be redraft. In this point authors should not present information what statistical tools were used and what limitations. Such information like " is the reason  why a signum test was used [23]. After that, insignificant and significant differences were calculated, first for expectations and then quality perceptions. " Such description should be putted into for example in the methodology

My comments does not dimishing the quality of the manuscript. They are applicable for better understood in scientific community. Overall is a good paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Thank you very much for the useful suggestions. We accepted all of the suggestions and we are sure that this will improve the quality and contribute to a better understanding of the paper.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to the Manuscript:

Comment 1.  Section 1 – last paragraph „Apart from the introductory section, the paper is divided into six sections. In Section….” - I reccomend to avoid such descriptions in manuscript. The generall conclusion of introduction part should generally indicate what has been analysed in following work.

Reply: Thank you for suggestion. This part is rewritten as follow.

Apart from the showed motivation and significance of the field of research, in paper it is reviewed the literature related to RL and the use of the SERVQUAL model in measuring the quality of services in logistics as support to create a good model in this study. The main parts of the paper are research methodology, case study, and results. In the research methodology, it is clarified how the research has been conducted, while part related to the case study explains how the survey data have been collected using the original SERVQUAL-MCDM model. Results summarize and explain research findings with extensive statistical analysis, while the next part of the paper provides a discussion of the results obtained. Also, the most important conclusions reached by this research and limitations and guidelines for future research are presented.

Comment 2. Authors said "Wang et al. [22] showed that the SERVQUAL model was most used by researchers, and that the model significantly contributed to service quality research." - why the model was most significantly contributed?

Reply: We have added an explanation. Wang et al. [22] showed that the SERVQUAL model was most used and cited by researchers, and thanks to that the model significantly contributed to service quality research. Apart from that many organizations have improved their quality after the application of the SERVQUAL model and obtaining poor results in the initial stage.

Comment 3. Description “Considering the ratings of expectations and quality perceptions, it is obvious that the number of ratings received has increased: for grade 1 from 189 to 195 (+6), for grade 2 from 291 to 324 (+33), for grade 3 from 236 to 297 (+61) and for grade 4 from 755 to 808 (+53), while the number of grades 5 given by users in terms of quality perception decreased from 881 to 728 (-153). In this way, it was shown that expectations were higher than the perceived RL quality” – The comments to the manuscript should show generall trends and on what does it affect. Describing from what value to which value something has increased it easy to read from data in tables.

Reply: Yes, you have right. We kept this in the text because we thinking that an additional explanation of these numbers in Table 6 is not problem. Besides, we have created a new Figure 1 with differences and trends in expectations and perception. Also, an explanation is as follow:

This fluctuation in ratings indicates the exclusive disappointment of the respondents who had the highest expectations (Figure 1). However, the presentation of expectations and perceptions of 112 respondents (Figure 2) by expectations and perception indicates uncharacteristic fluctuations. This fluctuation has a dominant tendency to decrease rat-ings for user perceptions, but in some cases it also has a tendency to increase ratings for user perceptions. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the relationship through a linear correlation between the same ratings of expectations and perceptions.

Comment 4.  Figure 1. The quality and legend description of the paper should be improved

Reply: We have replaced Figure 1.

Comment 5. Tables 8-10 – the results should be presented below the tables or Tables should be putted as the attachments of the following manuscript.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have formed Appendix and moved Tables 8-10 to this section. Please see new formed section Appendix.

Comment 6. The information in part 6. discussion should be redraft. In this point authors should not present information what statistical tools were used and what limitations. Such information like " is the reason  why a signum test was used [23]. After that, insignificant and significant differences were calculated, first for expectations and then quality perceptions. " Such description should be putted into for example in the methodology

Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. We have move mentioned parts in third section Methodology.

My comments does not dimishing the quality of the manuscript. They are applicable for better understood in scientific community. Overall is a good paper.

Thank you again for your very useful suggestions and overall assessment of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As in the answer, it is clear that there are limitations to the method presented as the country's characteristics are clear.
This has been explained sufficiently, and the content development accordingly is also appropriate. However, it is necessary to emphasize the limitations of this in the conclusion once again.
Thank you.