Operational Concept of an Innovative Management Framework for Choosing the Optimal Packaging System for Supply Chains
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, a mathematical model was proposed for the choice of optimal packaging system in supply chains. There are some missing parts in this research and there are some problems with structure, contents and langauge. An extensive effort is needed to improve the paper into a level that a recommendation of acceptance for publication is made.
- A numerical study is needed to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed model and solution results must be mentioned in the abstract.
- The literature review presented in the first section seems to be prepared in an inappropriate way. According to the data in Table 1, almost 800 papers were confronted in databases. However, there are a total of 20 references in the manuscript. How did you decide to eliminate the other papers? Also the table caption for table 1 seems irrelevant. In short, a more proper literature analysis is needed.
- Motivation, contributions and aim of the research are the missing contents in the introduction part.
- Moreover, introduction parts can be supported by some visual objects showing the functions and levels of packaging.
- The summary of literature analysis must be improved by mentioning the gap briefly.
- A paragpraph of paper organization must be given at the end of introduction.
- Figure 1 and verbal descriptions related to this figure needs improvement.
- There is problem with captions of Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.
- Steps of the system in Figure 3 must be revised according to flowchart design rules. There must be some control/decision modes in the chart.
- In text citation for Eq. (1) is needed. Why did the authors write [min] between the equation and equation number.
- Relation (2) statement in line 283 must be revised as Eq. (2) and there is a [min] statement in this equation, too.
- [EUR] statement in Eq. (3) is not understood and in text citation for Eq. (3) is not given. Cost terms in this equation must be stated verbally.
- No explanations given for the variable of the function in Eq. (4).
- How is the factors of quality in step 12 aggregated in Eq. (5)? It is not understood.
- What is obtained after Step 13? Why Equations (6-10) are used? The explanations are not clear.
- What is the Guilford method for weighting? There are no references and description for this method.
- What are the sign restrictions for the mathematical model? They must be given for each decision variable.
- Simulation models are run, that provide a solution under a given set of system parameters. Since the study proposes a optimal choice of packaging system, there must be optimization study within the model. Therefore, description of the model or the title of the study needs revision.
- There are no numerical analyses. This is an important part for such a study. Please insert a numerical analysis or case study part to the study.
- The discussion part provide no sufficient information. It is just a summary of previous parts. This part must include the significant findings of the study, its limitations and further research suggestions. Therefore, it must be revised completely.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the valuable suggestions, which were taken into account and the article was modified. We marked the modification of the thesis with proofreading, but at the same time we also indicate the most important changes here:
- We concretized the methodology of literature processing and reviewed a significant amount of new publications.
- The shortcomings revealed as a result of the literature review, the objectives and the methodology of the research were clarified in the paper.
- We prepared a case study to verify the developed method.
In our opinion, the professional quality of the paper has improved a lot. We hope that we have successfully completed all requested modifications.
Sincerely,
the Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
the document is very disjointed. Please follow some methodology for reviews, which allows knowing the exclusion and inclusion filters.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the valuable suggestions, which were taken into account and the article was modified. We marked the modification of the thesis with proofreading, but at the same time we also indicate the most important changes here:
- We concretized the methodology of literature processing and reviewed a significant amount of new publications.
- The shortcomings revealed as a result of the literature review, the objectives and the methodology of the research were clarified in the paper.
- We prepared a case study to verify the developed method.
In our opinion, the professional quality of the paper has improved a lot. We hope that we have successfully completed all requested modifications.
Sincerely,
the Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, this paper is not well written and the research paper is slightly interesting. However, the following comments shall be addressed:
1) Title is not impressive
Abstract required before introduction section also required to write properly. It should be written in the following steps;
a) Write the concept as per your paper title (2 lines minimum).
b) Objective (2 lines)
c) Tools (2 lines)
d) Output (3 lines)
e) Output with application in real life or in the industry (mandatory)
2) In the Introduction section,
a) the background of this research domain is way sufficing and the justification for this research (add some proper implication fig./picture in the background)
b) research gap, weakly presented.
c) the proposal of this research does not seem to be clearly presented to address the research gap. Please revise the Introduction section accordingly.
d) Literature review shall be comprehensive (rather than brief) to discuss the right breadth of knowledge and recent works in the area.
e) Better to add more recent work in the contribution table.
f) Author should provide the real case study with an appropriate diagram/picture to explain with details.
g) Managerial implications would be useful.
3) English writing should be improved. For academic writing, try to avoid using Maybe, and, but, etc. to start a sentence. Try to write research articles based on 3rd party writing style, hence avoid using We, our, etc.
4) Add a conclusion section, Output with application in real life or in the industry (mandatory) in the conclusion section.
Please focus on the application.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the valuable suggestions, which were taken into account and the article was modified. We marked the modification of the thesis with proofreading, but at the same time we also indicate the most important changes here:
- We concretized the methodology of literature processing and reviewed a significant amount of new publications.
- The shortcomings revealed as a result of the literature review, the objectives and the methodology of the research were clarified in the paper.
- We prepared a case study to verify the developed method.
In our opinion, the professional quality of the paper has improved a lot. We hope that we have successfully completed all requested modifications.
Sincerely,
the Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
My Comments
This work investigates Operational concept of the test system for choosing the optimal packaging system for supply chains, I am reasonably familiar with the literature on the topic and have ongoing research interest in this subject matter. The paper, is interesting to read. Yet, the overall contribution is average. I applaud your efforts to work on the topic but unfortunately, in my opinion, the discussion given in this paper is shallow, and I have a hard time seeing which specific conclusions could be drawn from it. I did not feel that the paper should be rejected as there are space for improvements. Please see below my concerns in detail.
a. Objectives and guiding research questions
I believe the introduction is quite comprehensive. Despite this, it fails to state the potential research gaps and research objectives and outline the main research questions. How it should be structured? What is necessary for a paper to be included and what should be excluded. Therefore, I suggest the author(s) to take help from the relevant papers 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3054771.
b. Literature Review
The paper is not well-grounded in the literature (i.e. the literature does not provide a critical review of research) and therefore, a more critical review is required. In my opinion, after a comprehensive literature search, Description of the operational concept of the packaging management system a compressive literature review should be there. For this you can help 10.3390/su14116917. Although, this is one of the main limitations of this study.
c. Methodology
I did not find any specific methodology for this study except few formulas has been added under 12.
d. Discussion
Discussion section is not well up to the mark. Please, first compare and contrast the study with the previous studies, second my main concern is the practical and social implications, the practical implications should be discussed in more detail and comprehensiveness. Theoretical contribution and practical implication should be added. Third, future research direction should be added.
e. Conclusion
Conclusion should be added.
d. Lastly, the manuscript needs extensive editing. Most of the paragraphs are hard to follow. Therefore, you need to take help from an expert. Finally, if the authors are willing to amend the paper, I will be happy to review it again.
Good Luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the valuable suggestions, which were taken into account and the article was modified. We marked the modification of the thesis with proofreading, but at the same time we also indicate the most important changes here:
- We concretized the methodology of literature processing and reviewed a significant amount of new publications.
- The shortcomings revealed as a result of the literature review, the objectives and the methodology of the research were clarified in the paper.
- We prepared a case study to verify the developed method.
In our opinion, the professional quality of the paper has improved a lot. We hope that we have successfully completed all requested modifications.
Sincerely,
the Authors
Reviewer 5 Report
The author must focus on the identification of the problem, and then set the research objectives.
Scientific rigor is missing.
relevant studies are just summarised, no discussion on that.
LR section is missing
only model development, not compared with existing models.
The discussion section is very poor
The implication is not explicitly mentioned
Add some more references
Proofread is required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the valuable suggestions, which were taken into account and the article was modified. We marked the modification of the thesis with proofreading, but at the same time we also indicate the most important changes here:
- We concretized the methodology of literature processing and reviewed a significant amount of new publications.
- The shortcomings revealed as a result of the literature review, the objectives and the methodology of the research were clarified in the paper.
- We prepared a case study to verify the developed method.
In our opinion, the professional quality of the paper has improved a lot. We hope that we have successfully completed all requested modifications.
Sincerely,
the Authors
Reviewer 6 Report
The paper is original, interesting and it has a high potential to make great contribution for theory and practice. However, the paper is not structured in an academic manner. It misses also a lot of aspects that need to be discussed as in the introduction or materials and methods part, as well as in the discussion, conclusion and implications.
Here are some detailed comments:
The abstract needs to rewrite. There is a lot of introductions but the aim, methodology and results of the study are not clear from abstract.
In the body text, the introduction is not enough for proving that the topic is relevant to investigate. You need to make evident the need of your study. What is the role of packaging? What kind of problems raise in the traditional system of packaging? Why there is a need for digitization? How it will help – what is the expected result?
You write: “In addition to the main functions, packaging affects the supply chain in many ways, as it is linked to logistics, marketing, information systems, as well as manufacturing, waste management and transportation.” – describe in more details, how the supply chains are affected?
This article (https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313070) illustrates the role of digital information given on the product for consumers as well as the improvement of the supply chain processes as a whole thanks to digitization of the information sharing procedures. It mentions also the economic, social and environmental impacts of such supply chain model. In your paper, you miss a lot of aspects to discuss.
Besides, in my opinion, the role of packaging is different for different kind of product – food products, clothes, machineries, etc. Which kind of products do you investigate?
Rewrite this part: “It is very difficult to find the appropriate literature if the research topic were to be fully studied. Based on the literature analysis, the research activity will be carried out using knowledge related to the discipline of logistics.”
What is the research aim? Research question?
I suggest to separate the methodology part from the introduction, so to write separate paragraph #2.
Explain your choice about ScienceDirect and Scopus databases. Why have you excluded WoS, GoogleScholar, or others?
How have you used the keywords in the search? Together or separately? You used “and” or “or” functions? How many articles did you find? How have you filtered those articles? (please, see the example: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127383). I see some information in the table but describe in the text as well.
From the line 69, you are describing already the results. Please, separate the results from introduction and methodology. It should be the paragraph #3.
Line 122: “6 basic types and the combinations” of what? Where did you get these 6 types? You need a reference. If it is your proposed model, it needs a basis, where this model comes from...
Line 141: describe the 7th case
Figure 2: Where these ideas come from? You need references. As I see, in this section you describe your proposed model based on the cased described by you. But you can not just propose a model and say that it will work. You need a starting point to arrive to this solution. This starting point might arise from literature or your own research.
You are talking about simulation but for the reader it is not clear what kind of simulation has been carried out.
In the results, please make comparison with the previous literature step-by-step. Your obtained results might be in line or contrary of previous academic works but the comparison is necessary in order to better understand the novelty of your study, the usability of your results.
Discussion part does not discuss anything actually. It is a half-summarized content of article. You can write discussion together or separately from the results but it must discuss each output of your study – where it went from, why is it important, what kind of usability has it for researchers of practitioners and so on.
You absolutely miss the conclusion and implications of the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the valuable suggestions, which were taken into account and the article was modified. We marked the modification of the thesis with proofreading, but at the same time we also indicate the most important changes here:
- We concretized the methodology of literature processing and reviewed a significant amount of new publications.
- The shortcomings revealed as a result of the literature review, the objectives and the methodology of the research were clarified in the paper.
- We prepared a case study to verify the developed method.
In our opinion, the professional quality of the paper has improved a lot. We hope that we have successfully completed all requested modifications.
Sincerely,
the Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
While the overall quality of the paper is improved, the revised form still far from scientific publication level. So, I again recommend a reject decision. You should get help of a professional editing service before re-submission.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The modifications were marked with proofreading. Relevant changes are:
- typing errors, quality of figures, English grammar have been corrected,
- the abstract, conclusion has been clarified,
- the review of the literature was modified according to the suggestions.
- the paper was corrected according to requests for further clarification.
We are convinced that the article has improved a lot compared to the initial state. We trust that the current paper meets all expectations.
Thank you for your work and suggestions!
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study improved significantly, now it's time to improve the quality of the images for the final edition.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The modifications were marked with proofreading. Relevant changes are:
- typing errors, quality of figures, English grammar have been corrected,
- the abstract, conclusion has been clarified,
- the review of the literature was modified according to the suggestions.
- the paper was corrected according to requests for further clarification.
We are convinced that the article has improved a lot compared to the initial state. We trust that the current paper meets all expectations.
Thank you for your work and suggestions!
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The modifications were marked with proofreading. Relevant changes are:
- typing errors, quality of figures, English grammar have been corrected,
- the abstract, conclusion has been clarified,
- the review of the literature was modified according to the suggestions.
- the paper was corrected according to requests for further clarification.
We are convinced that the article has improved a lot compared to the initial state. We trust that the current paper meets all expectations.
Thank you for your work and suggestions!
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
My comments
Dear Authors, I would like to congratulate you on revising the paper significantly and presenting a detailed revision. I am happy to see the efforts put in by the authors. After reading the paper, I believe that the paper needs some more work in the next revision:
1. In the paper, there is lack of consistency and continuity. I suggest the authors that they must work on it.
2. The author should include the latest paper of sustainability which is 10.3390/su142416336 in your work.
Good Luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The modifications were marked with proofreading. Relevant changes are:
- typing errors, quality of figures, English grammar have been corrected,
- the abstract, conclusion has been clarified,
- the review of the literature was modified according to the suggestions.
- the paper was corrected according to requests for further clarification.
We are convinced that the article has improved a lot compared to the initial state. We trust that the current paper meets all expectations.
Thank you for your work and suggestions!
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Author(s)
The manuscript is revised, some improvements are required before publication:
Kindly rewrite the academic sentence, for instance, refer lines 141-145.
Provide the implications of the study.
The conclusion should include the future scope of the study.
Proof read is required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The modifications were marked with proofreading. Relevant changes are:
- typing errors, quality of figures, English grammar have been corrected,
- the abstract, conclusion has been clarified,
- the review of the literature was modified according to the suggestions.
- the paper was corrected according to requests for further clarification.
We are convinced that the article has improved a lot compared to the initial state. We trust that the current paper meets all expectations.
Thank you for your work and suggestions!
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
The paper is improved considerably. However, I have a number of other comments:
the references are messed up and I can not understand which one refers to the same number in the text. Also the numbering of subtitles are not correct.
The paper has a serious problem of “storytelling” and continuity, of moving from one argument to another smoothly, of the description of what is done. Also, the half of the paper is just written with the phantasy of authors. A lot of statements need to be strengthened with the references.
Additionally, some phrases are too difficult to understand due to the language/writing style.
Some detailed comments:
“Packaging is the starting point of logistics, and an important precondition for this are the optimum selection of the right packaging materials, the design of the packaging structure and the preparation of the right packaging technology” who said?
Also, the references are needed for describing 6 main functions of the packaging and three levels. If it is your own conclusion, it should not be in the introduction part, it should be in results and discussions (as minimum in the literature review part) that will be strengthened with the relevant literature. Otherwise, please provide the source of this information.
https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2019-003014 this article deals with the role of correct packaging as for reducing the food waste as well as for the consumers in order to get the necessary information regarding the product.
While this article (https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313070) deals with the importance of information accessibility in time for avoiding as food waste as well as the spread of harmful products and to reach the sustainable development goals in terms of economic, social and environmental (transportation and CO2) impacts. This article will help to strengthen your statement: “In addition to the main functions, packaging affects the supply chain in many ways, as it is linked to logistics, marketing, information systems, as well as manufacturing, waste management and transportation.”
You talked about the role of digitalization. I suggest this article (https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0014 ) that will connect your statements with my previous and following comments (digitalization, collaboration, information sharing).
You have little bit enlarged the discussion of the role of packaging but you still miss some aspects: the role of packaging for the durability of the product life (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.006 this article argues that the novel packaging increases the shelf life of fresh products); the role of packaging for giving necessary information to the consumers including labelling (https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.292236; https://www.cscjournals.org/library/manuscriptinfo.php?mc=IJBRM-302, and https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0007-070X articles prove the importance of correct packaging giving the necessary information to the consumers through labelling in order to make purchasing decision); the role of packaging for environment (recyclable or reusable materials - https://doi.org/10.1430/87786 )
You list Solutions for the assessment of packaging systems. It needs the references.
“One of the goals of our study is to identify research gaps and provide opportunities 81 for future research.” And others?
Now, when I read the introduction, I do not understand the problem and the aim of the study. OK the goal is to identify research gap but in what direction? I think, when you read my previous comments and the suggested articles you will adjust the introduction in a way to be smoother to read: what an important step is packaging of logistics or supply chain (they are different); how important is the correct packaging and for what (economy, society, environment); then what is the problem (few studies? Low awareness of the industry workers of packaging importance? Low quality packaging on the market? Non sustainable packaging? I do not know! You have to identify the problem); then you can logically define the research aim and questions.
“First, the methodology of the literature analysis and the results of the literature review are presented to define the research gaps” WHAT? I really do not understand the sense. Also, the first was the introduction, the materials (literature) and methods are following. Please, rewrite the paragraph and use proofreading service.
paragraph #2 is “Methodology”. I suggest to change a title.
“Step 1. Motivation: The personal motivation for the literature analysis was the result of the research I did during my PhD studies in the 1st – 3rd semester and also the Packaging Development Engineering course which started a the Institute of Logistics, University of Miskolc.” – the motivation should not be subjective. The motivation of the study should be an existing problem of the industry, of the society. Then, of course, you should be an expert of the field. But it can not be a motivation that you have followed any course on the topic. Also, the existence of the problem you should prove by the literature (in the introduction)
“Step 2. Identification of research questions (What research has been done within this topic area, who has done it so far, where are the scientific gaps” - which topic area?
“who has done it so far” – do you think, it sounds academically?
“search was limited to the years 2000 – 2022” – it is OK but explain the decision.
From the step 3 indicate how many articles have you collected, then after 4th step how many of them remained and so on.
Explain your choice about the databases. Why that databases are important and not others. Please strengthen the argument with other literature.
I suggest to add a table in paragraph 3 summarizing everything that is written in the text, so to make a table adding the source, the topic of the article and the solution of that authors.
PLEASE differentiate the supply chain and logistics!
In the paragraph 3, please note that the second step of the research so of the methodology is case study and describe also this step. Example: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313070 (paragraph 3)
It is not still clear: “6 basic types and the combinations” of what? Where did you get these 6 types (from observation or from the literature)? You need a reference. If it is your proposed model, it needs a basis, where this model comes from...
Indicate the source of table 1.
After figure 4 comes figure 6. Pay attention.
Figure 6: Where these ideas come from? You need references. As I see, in this section you describe your proposed model based on the cased described by you. But you can not just propose a model and say that it will work. You need a starting point to arrive to this solution. This starting point might arise from literature or your own research.
Almost all figures miss the source.
Lines 262-320: almost all sentences need the references and you have 0 citation.
Same for the whole paragraph 4.3. where all this text and ideas come from? Please, do not forget that at the end this work should be an academic article (now it is not!)
You are talking about simulation but for the reader it is not clear what kind of simulation has been carried out.
“The chapter describes the elements of the packaging management system through a 504 fictional model based on practical experience” describe the practical experience in details: what kind of experience of which company/companies.
“Data was entered directly into the data tables” – what is this data?
“without using a web-based data entry interface” – ok but using what?
Plant Simulation Framework version 2021: Please, describe is it a software? what are its characteristics?
Line 514: “To define the purpose of the study” – now are you defining the purpose of the study? Usually we do it in the introduction. Half of the paper is already done and you are saying just now the purpose?
“In a real system, the management, and the customer, with the support of the expert, would define the task to be performed, the expectations and the method of payment for the service in a service contract” – who said? What is the “real system” or unreal?
Paragraph 4.4. examination steps: you describe in details but where this process happens? Have you observed in any company, then in which? Or have you read anywhere? Then please cite. In the academic article you cant just write whatever you want or think by your logic. You have to prove every (!) statement through the references or own research.
The paper misses the caption of results and discussion. Please add the section or restructure the article and make comparison of your results with the previous literature step-by-step. Your obtained results might be in line or contrary of previous academic works but the comparison is necessary in order to better understand the novelty of your study, the usability of your results. Additionally, this chapter must discuss each output of your study – where it went from, why is it important, what kind of usability has it for researchers of practitioners and so on.
“Following a detailed literature analysis, this publication has found that companies essentially develop and apply their own methodologies for selecting the appropriate packaging system” – I have not seen this. Maybe the table (that I have suggested to add) will help to have a clearer view of the outputs of literature review.
“packaging system has a significant impact on the evolution of operating costs.” – only operating cost? No environmental or social?
“validity of the concept was demonstrated in a case study” - I really do not see what is the “case” in this article.
The article still misses the implications of the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. The modifications were marked with proofreading. Relevant changes are:
- typing errors, quality of figures, English grammar have been corrected,
- the abstract, conclusion has been clarified,
- the review of the literature was modified according to the suggestions.
- the paper was corrected according to requests for further clarification.
We are convinced that the article has improved a lot compared to the initial state. We trust that the current paper meets all expectations.
Thank you for your work and suggestions!
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The writing style still needs significant improvements. I don't find it beneficial to recommend a reject decision again since one of the authors of the paper is the editor of the special issue.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
We reviewed the publication from the point of view of English grammar and professional style with two colleagues who use English at a high level. The corrections were marked with proofreading.
I hope that the standard of the article has become acceptable.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
I think, the paper needs the proofreading not only for grammar errors but also to correct the stylistically the writing manner.
References are improved but the formatting is different from each other. Please check the journal requirements.
Correct source of the reference #44: â–ª Adamashvili N., Chiara F., Fiore M. (2019). “Food Loss and Waste, a global responsibility?!” Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy 21(3), 825-846. DOI: 10.3280/ECAG2019-003014. You can not write ResearchGate as a source.
I think, you missed my previous comment and I repeat: “One of the goals of our study is to identify research gaps and provide opportunities for future research.” Why one of the goals? Where are other goals then?
I would change the title of paragraph 2 as “Materials and methods”.
Please, include also case study in the paragraph where you describe the methodology of the study.
The paper still misses the comparison of own results with the previous studies. It would make evident the added value of this research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
We reviewed the publication in terms of English grammar and professional style with two colleagues who use English at a high level. Corrections were marked with proofreading. We have made the requested corrections. A comparison of the own results and the results achieved in connection with previous studies can be found at the end of the case study and in the conclusion. Unfortunately, due to the unique nature of the developed test method, we did not see an opportunity for a more detailed comparison.
We hope that the quality of the article has become acceptable after the modifications.
Sincerely,
The authors
