An Integrated Methodology for Enhancing Reverse Logistics Flows and Networks in Industry 5.0
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research goals solving the problems of circular economy are well defined and justified.
The paper proposes as novelty an approach to integrate binary logistics regression with decision trees for the optimization of the reverse logistics network.
The approach is well linked to the domain’s literature of the last years mentioning good and relevant references. The main methodologies involved for reverse logistics include methods from internet of things, artificial intelligence (machine learning, neural networks), block chain etc.
These methodologies are well explained and analyzed.
The proposed problems involve the use of a large amount of data that has to be acquired and proceeds under real-time constraints. Obviously the problems are very complex and require complicated technical methods where the human intuition is overwhelmed.
The proposed and used methodology is described by a few formulas without mentioning their original use or proving them.
It is declared that the proposed integrated methodology contributes to the optimization leverages the probabilistic capabilities in use of the logistics regression. The term optimization is used in the sense of improvement and not to extremize something.
Some technical improvements of the proposed methods should be included for clarifying of their use.
An example of the application of the proposed procedure in the field of Electronics Manufacturer's Reverse Logistics is provided. This should help the understanding of how the methods are applied and how are obtained the results that they provide.
I suggest including some (imaginary) tables with numerical values and showing how the formulas and procedures are used. The current application is too vague and does not clarify how the results are or should be obtained.
Please mention in the introduction if the proposed methods concern a quantitative approach or a qualitative one.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language is fine, but some formal improvements would increase the paper quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract is somehow poorly written. I believe you should employ the classic forma, Purpose, motivation, methodology, results, implications for the industry, and further developments.
The text is somehow wordy and colloquial. Please, revise the style, even if the content, generally, is good. For example, your first phrase is … In an era where sustainability and efficiency are crucial for long-term success … It could be written as … Sustainability and efficiency are relevant for long-term performance …. Avoid colloquial expressions (In an era …) and mainly strong adjectives (crucial). Furthermore … Industry 5.0 is characterized by the integration of cutting-edge technologies … could be Industry 5.0 integrates cutting-edge technologies … when possible, avoid passive voice.
The statement … Among the more notable methodologies is System Dynamics (SD) …requires a ref.
You state that you're proposing a novel approach. You should provide evidence to support that this a novelty. It is easy. Perform a brief search in SCOPUS with the keywords “binary logistics regression”, “decision trees”, and “reverse logistics network”. If nothing emerges, you’re done. Otherwise, you should confront what you did with what others did. It is not too hard to do and provides reliability to your study.
Your review has two lacks, a list of reverse channels and the practice of industrial symbiosis, usually the most relevant motivation to reverse logistics. You can find a good references in (Table 1, reverse channels, DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-9025) and DOI: 10.3303/CET1870036 (Industrial Symbiosis: A Case Study Involving a Steelmaking …, a very simple study that reports how to reuse more than 200,000 tonnes of industrial waste per year).
In section 3, … As outlined in section 1, … is useless, please remove redundant text as it turns the reading tedious. Please avoid lumped refs as [27-29], as this kind of ref does not help other researchers t triangulate your findings. You would better explicitly state what ref offers what contribution.
The study seems to be incomplete without a strong case study to exemplify. Please open a new section named Case Study, in which you describe a real-world application of your proposal. Only a framework and marginal comments on real-case applications seems to me to be too few for a scientific study in a top journal. I believe that a strong, real-life case study would provide reliability to your findings, as your theoretical contribution would be compared with reality.
Please insert a discussion on the implications by answering: who may gain what and why upon your findings?
Finally, the number of references seems to be too low. I believe you should cite around 60–70 studies to ensure validity, there is, you really found what you're searching for.
You have indeed a good understanding of the problem and your article can be accepted, provided the amendments abovementioned.
Best regards
Comments on the Quality of English Languagestyle revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper combines two important issues: reverse logistics and Industry 5.0. This alone makes it interesting.
The methodological part deserves attention. The integrated methodology combines decision tree analysis and binary logistic regression to enhance data-driven decision-making in reverse logistics.
Key recommendations of the paper are:
1) The purpose of the article and, in the case of research, the research questions should be more clearly stated.
2) The theoretical part should be enriched.
3) The presentation of the results should be in a more attractive form.
I recommend publishing the paper after making appropriate improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn reviewing the title, my expectation was to encounter a comprehensive integrated methodology within the paper. Section 4 attempts to elucidate this integrated methodology; however, its presentation is regrettably unclear. I seek clarification on the nature of its integration, the specifics of computations, and the identification of inputs and outputs. Additionally, a critical aspect involves the validation process—how was this approach validated, and where is the comparative analysis against the state of the art? These concerns form the crux of my evaluation.
Moreover, several minor points merit attention. In the abstract, I recommend emphasizing the novelty inherent in the proposed approach and providing insight into why it is labeled as an integrated methodology. Including numerical findings from the paper in the abstract would offer a more tangible preview of the contributions.
In the introduction, I propose first defining Industry 4.0 and subsequently introducing Industry 5.0 to enhance the reader's understanding.
For the literature review, a focused exploration of key review papers in the realm of supply chain management and reverse logistics is suggested. Specifically, I recommend considering works such as "Blockchain in supply chain management: A review, bibliometric, and network analysis" in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, as well as "A survey of multi-criteria decision-making techniques for green logistics and low-carbon transportation systems," and "Supply chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recognizing potential disruption management strategies" in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
Concerning the formulations within the paper, it is imperative for the authors to define all notations to enhance clarity and understanding.
Finally, the conclusion section would benefit from a more robust presentation. The authors are encouraged to provide additional details regarding the contributions, key findings, limitations, and potential avenues for future research. This will ensure a comprehensive and conclusive closure to the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more demands or recommendations.
Congratulations! It is a good and interesting paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn page 14, line 578, section 6, the expression Case Study 1 should be removed, as it is useless
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made commendable efforts in revising and enhancing the paper. I believe this revision is well-executed and suitable for publication.
