Pricing Decisions for Power Battery Closed-Loop Supply Chains with Low-Carbon Input by Echelon Utilization Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Pricing Decision for Power Battery Closed Loop Supply Chain Considering Cascade Utilization of Enterprises for Low Carbon Investment", is an interesting topic. However, there are some shortcomings in this study that need to be corrected for acceptance:

 

1. Contributions should be stated in the abstract.

 

２. In the introduction, 2023 studies should be used to express the problem.

 

3. Please bring some facts and figures in the introduction to support the ideas. Especially from www.statista.com

 

4. The literature does not cover all studies. Please review the literature systematically. In this regard, refer to the latest studies by searching the keywords closed-loop supply chain, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109944

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121745

 

5. Please add a research gap in section 5.

 

6.  In section 3, please add more references for the sentences and equations you hired. I do not suggest any special reference due to ethical issues. Please search and find.

 

7.  Please clarify which one of the assumptions is new in this area in the problem definition.

 

8. Check the English presentation of this paper to remove typos and mistakes.

 

9.  Findings, limitations, and recommendations of this paper can be discussed more in the conclusion section.

 

10. Please bring and focus on future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article "Pricing Decision for Power Battery Closed Loop Supply Chain Considering Cascade Utilization of Enterprises for Low Carbon Investment", is an interesting topic. However, there are some shortcomings in this study that need to be corrected for acceptance:

 

1. Contributions should be stated in the abstract.

 

２. In the introduction, 2023 studies should be used to express the problem.

 

3. Please bring some facts and figures in the introduction to support the ideas. Especially from www.statista.com

 

4. The literature does not cover all studies. Please review the literature systematically. In this regard, refer to the latest studies by searching the keywords closed-loop supply chain, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109944

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121745

 

5. Please add a research gap in section 5.

 

6.  In section 3, please add more references for the sentences and equations you hired. I do not suggest any special reference due to ethical issues. Please search and find.

 

7.  Please clarify which one of the assumptions is new in this area in the problem definition.

 

8. Check the English presentation of this paper to remove typos and mistakes.

 

9.  Findings, limitations, and recommendations of this paper can be discussed more in the conclusion section.

 

10. Please bring and focus on future research directions.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Pricing Decision for Power Battery Closed Loop Supply Chain Considering Cascade Utilization of Enterprises for Low Carbon Investment

Abstract:
The abstract provides a concise summary of the paper's content and states the main results effectively. However, there are a few grammatical errors that need to be addressed. For example, "Increase low-carbon innovation investment in the reverse supply chain" should be revised to "Increase investment in low-carbon innovation in the reverse supply chain." Additionally, the sentence "The impact of the initial recycling rate of waste power batteries on decision variables is negative, while it can be positive for the overall profit growth of the supply chain and node enterprises, with the location of inflection points being particularly important" is quite complex and could be rewritten for better clarity.

Introduction:
“Against the backdrop of carbon neutrality, promoting the full process low-carbon development of the new energy vehicle industry is becoming a focus of the industry.” It should be extended as two sentences at the beginning is very strange: Who buys New Energy Vehicles in China? Assessing social-psychological predictors of purchasing awareness, intention, and policy: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour Volume 58, October 2018, Pages 56-69. The introduction provides a good overview of the research topic and its significance in the context of carbon neutrality and low-carbon development. However, it exceeds the 2 pages and should be shortened to maintain reader engagement. The research question is stated clearly, and the introduction adequately establishes the need for the study. The introductory discussion references relevant literature and provides a good foundation for the research.

Delete: The literature review is divided into the following: 83

(1) research on closed-loop supply chain, 84

(2) research on pricing decision of closed loop supply chain, 85

(3) research on Supply Chain Considering technological innovation, and 86

(4) Research on low-carbon supply chain.

Literature:

Add hypotheses after related paragraph of literature review.

Method:
The paper's method is not clearly described. Section 3 may be the research method but all citations are missing, such as, what is Stackelberg game model? Why this is used but not others? Including more details about the research design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques would be beneficial. Theorem 3. And Theorem 3: should remove one, similar cases should also retain one only.

Results and Interpretation:
Sections 4-6 should add back the citations. Results should be separated from research method part. Line 566, simulation analysis was used but what kind of simulation? How does that compare with previous simulations work like Monte Carlo Simulation: Management Optimization of Electricity System with Sustainability Enhancement, Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6650;

Implications for research, practice, and society:
The excerpt does not clearly identify the research implications for research, practice, and society. It is important for the paper to explicitly discuss how the findings contribute to the body of knowledge, how they can be applied in practical settings, and their potential impact on society. Without this information, the broader significance of the research is not adequately addressed.

Quality of Communication:
The writing in the provided excerpt is generally clear and concise. However, some grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures need to be addressed. For example, "The recycling rate of retired power batteries in China is relatively high, and recycling is only the first half of the entire industry chain" could be revised as "The recycling rate of retired power batteries in China is relatively high, but recycling only represents the first half of the entire industry chain." Additionally, attention should be paid to jargon use and the clarity of expression to ensure the paper is accessible to the journal's readership.

Conclusion:
The conclusions' clarity and alignment with the evidence presented cannot be assessed based on the provided excerpt. However, it is crucial for the conclusions to logically follow from the research findings and for their implications to be clearly stated. The impact of the research on society, public attitudes, and quality of life should also be addressed.

 The whole paper has to be shortened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Polish english.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Please see the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written but still needs some work for improvement.

1. Add the novelty and implications to the abstract.

2. Introduction is well written but needs to be supported by the references. Add references to it.

3. There is no proper discussion of the results. Please note that interpretation and discussion are different things. So add Discussion section before conclusion, which bridge results and conclusion.

4. Add limitation, implications, and future research directions.

5. Add at least 20 more references. 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Pricing Decision for Power Battery Closed Loop Supply Chain Considering Cascade Utilization of Enterprises for Low Carbon Investment" still has shortcomings that I give the authors the opportunity to correct:

1- Please provide evidence of the importance of the subject under study in the form of a diagram in the introduction. For this, you can refer to http://www.statista.com/.

2- Please state the contributions of the study at the end of the introduction

3- The literature still has serious deficiencies. Please add relevant articles in the literature by searching "Closed-Loop Supply Chain" and "Supply Chain Network Design". For example, please, in section (2.1. Research on Closed-Loop Supply Chain), examine the following studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117807

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109944

4- What assumptions are new in the proposed problem?

5- Please provide the pseudocode of the proposed method so that the proposed method is useful for readers.

6- Please compare the proposed approach with other similar studies. In other words, provide a comparison with the state of the art in the article.

7- The theoretical and managerial insights of the study should be added to the article. What are the theoretical and operational achievements of your study?

8- The article should be carefully checked for errors in the English language.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article "Pricing Decision for Power Battery Closed Loop Supply Chain Considering Cascade Utilization of Enterprises for Low Carbon Investment" still has shortcomings that I give the authors the opportunity to correct:

1- Please provide evidence of the importance of the subject under study in the form of a diagram in the introduction. For this, you can refer to http://www.statista.com/.

2- Please state the contributions of the study at the end of the introduction

3- The literature still has serious deficiencies. Please add relevant articles in the literature by searching "Closed-Loop Supply Chain" and "Supply Chain Network Design". For example, please, in section (2.1. Research on Closed-Loop Supply Chain), examine the following studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117807

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109944

4- What assumptions are new in the proposed problem?

5- Please provide the pseudocode of the proposed method so that the proposed method is useful for readers.

6- Please compare the proposed approach with other similar studies. In other words, provide a comparison with the state of the art in the article.

7- The theoretical and managerial insights of the study should be added to the article. What are the theoretical and operational achievements of your study?

8- The article should be carefully checked for errors in the English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The authors have to check and revise all according to the editor and reviewers’ comments.

2.     Abstract: it needs to state academic, practical and policy implications, research gaps that have been filled and originality.

3.     The paper lacks originality as it does not present new and significant information that justifies publication. The findings and insights provided in the paper are not novel and do not contribute substantially to the existing body of knowledge in the field.

4.     The relationship to literature is insufficient. The paper fails to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the relevant literature in the field. The range of literature sources cited is limited, and there are significant works that have been ignored. The authors should conduct a more thorough review of the existing literature and incorporate a wider range of relevant sources. Before we talk about closed supply chain, we should state the current state of art in supply chain and therefore, we focus on the so-called close supply chain etc: Zeng et al. Evaluating green supply chain performance based on ESG and financial indicators, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022

5.     The methodology of the paper is not well-established. The argument is not built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas. The research design is not clearly described, and it is unclear how the methods employed are suitable for addressing the research questions. The authors should provide a more robust and rigorous methodology to strengthen their argument.

6.     The results are presented in a somewhat unclear manner. The data analysis and interpretation are lacking in clarity and depth. The authors should provide a more comprehensive analysis of the results and clearly explain the implications of their findings. The conclusions do not adequately tie together the other elements of the paper and should be revised to provide a more cohesive and logical summary.

7.     The implications for research, practice, and society are not clearly identified. The paper does not clearly articulate the practical applications or potential impact of the research. The authors should explicitly state the implications of their findings for research, practice, and society, and discuss how their work can bridge the gap between theory and practice.

8.     The quality of communication needs improvement. Abbreviations like CLSC should be included in full names instead of abbreviations. Lines 97-142 needs to be broken to two to three paragraphs. The paper contains grammatical errors and lacks clarity in expression. The sentence structure is often convoluted, and jargon and acronyms are used without sufficient explanation. The authors should revise the paper to improve clarity, readability, and conciseness.

9.     The research question is not clearly stated in the introduction. The authors should clearly define the research question or objective of the study at the beginning of the paper to provide a clear focus for the readers.

10.  The introduction is excessively long, exceeding the recommended length. The authors should consider shortening the introduction to provide a concise overview of the research background and objectives.

11.  There are no apparent citation errors in the paper. The references are appropriately cited, but the authors should consider expanding the range of references to include more recent developments in the field.

12.  The interpretations and conclusions presented in the paper lack strong support from the evidence provided. The assumptions and methodology used in the study should be clearly explained and justified to ensure the validity of the interpretations and conclusions.

13.  The paper lacks a clear contextualization of the progress reported in relation to existing published work. For example, it mentioned a lot in the proposition about low carbon but prior that do not have much literature mentioned about why we need to have low carbon and the current  state of art research in low carbon, as such, they need state more about that: A study on public perceptions of carbon neutrality in China: has the idea of ESG been encompassed? Frontier in Environmental Sciences 10, 949959

14.  The authors should provide a more thorough discussion of how their work aligns with and contributes to the existing literature in the field.

15.  The conclusions and potential impacts of the paper are not clearly stated. The authors should revise the conclusion section to provide a concise summary of the main findings and their implications for research, practice, and society.

16.  The title of the paper does not adequately represent the content of the paper. It should be revised to accurately reflect the scope and focus of the research.

17.  The abstract does not provide a clear and concise summary of the paper and its main results. It should be revised to better reflect the key findings and contributions of the research.

18.  The keywords provided in the paper appear to be accurate in reflecting the content of the paper.

19.  The key messages in the paper should be more succinct, accurate, and clear. The authors should focus on highlighting the most important findings and implications in a concise manner.

Overall, the paper requires significant improvements in terms of originality, literature review, methodology, results analysis, implications, communication quality, and clarity of presentation. The authors should address these weaknesses and revise the paper accordingly to enhance its contribution to the field.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Polish English

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated the comments and the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article in its current form is approved for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article in its current form is approved for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The author has to check all the previous comments and revise accordingly.

2.     The paper lacks originality and significant new information. It does not present novel findings or contributions to the field. The research seems to be a replication of existing studies on closed-loop supply chains and low-carbon innovation.

3.     The relationship to the literature is insufficient. The paper demonstrates a limited understanding of the relevant literature in the field : “Evaluating green supply chain performance based on ESG and financial indicators”, Front. Environ. Sci., 2022

4.     It fails to cite a comprehensive range of literature sources and neglects to acknowledge significant work in the area of power battery closed-loop supply chains.

5.     The methodology is not well-developed. The paper does not provide a clear explanation of the theoretical base or conceptual framework upon which the research is built. The design of the research or equivalent intellectual work is not adequately described, and the methods employed are not sufficiently justified or explained.

6.     The results are presented in a confusing manner. The data analysis and presentation lack clarity and coherence. The conclusions drawn from the results are not well-supported or logically connected to the other elements of the paper.

7.     The implications for research, practice, and society are not clearly identified. The paper fails to highlight the practical applications or economic and commercial impacts of the research. It does not bridge the gap between theory and practice, nor does it discuss how the findings can be used to influence public policy or contribute to the body of knowledge.

8.     The quality of communication is poor. The paper contains numerous grammatical errors, sentence structure issues, and the use of jargon and acronyms without proper explanation. The writing style is unclear and lacks conciseness. The key points are not effectively communicated, and the paper does not accurately reflect the main points.

9.     The research question is not clearly stated in the introduction. The introduction is excessively long and could be shortened to provide a more concise overview of the topic and research objectives.

10.  There are several citation errors throughout the paper. In some instances, relevant sources are not cited, while in others, citations are missing or improperly formatted. The paper should ensure accurate and consistent referencing.

11.  The interpretations and conclusions lack strong support from the evidence presented. The assumptions, methodology, and evidence are not adequately discussed or validated. The logical flow of the conclusions is weak, and they do not convincingly follow from the research findings.

12.  The paper does not effectively contextualize the progress reported within existing published work. The referencing and introductory discussion are insufficient, and the paper fails to establish a clear connection between the research and previous studies in the field.

13.  Some figures and tables lack clarity and do not have sufficient citation support. The captions of the figures and tables should be more informative and self-explanatory.

14.  The paper contains unnecessary parts that do not contribute to the understanding of the new results and main points. It should focus on presenting the essential information in a clear and concise manner. The graphics and tables should be reviewed for relevance and clarity.

15.  The conclusions and potential impacts of the paper are not clear. The paper should provide a more explicit summary of the main findings and their implications for future research, practice, and society.

16.  The title of the paper does not adequately represent the content. It should be revised to accurately reflect the focus and scope of the research.

17.  The abstract does not provide a concise and comprehensive summary of the paper. It should clearly state the main results and key findings. The abstract and main body of the paper should be able to stand alone and convey the main points effectively.

18.  The keywords do not accurately reflect the content of the paper. They should be revised to include the most relevant terms related to the research topic.

19.  Lines 118-191 should be broken to three paragraphs at least.

20.  Low carbon is the PRC government’s direction and more details about why low carbn is needed, PRC’s position at present should be added, Front. Environ. Sci., 03 January 2023, Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 10

21.  The key messages of the paper should be rephrased to be concise, accurate, and clear. They should effectively highlight the main contributions and findings of the research.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Polish English

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the fourth time I read the same paper. The authors' replies always mentioned that they had completed according to the reviewer's comments but actually did not.

It is very strange to see formulae at the end of the paper and those equations like line 895 and 896 cannot tell what they are when we read them. There are too many symbols without explanation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Polish English

Author Response

In each Coverletter submitted, we revised the article one by one according to the opinions of each reviewer, and we also explained the reasons for the lack of modification in the reply. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

We present the calculation method of the inflection point as well as the results in page 22 and line 894 to 897.