An Improved Revenue Distribution Model for Logistics Service Supply Chain Considering Fairness Preference

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

I believe you have touched a very interesting topic by focusing on revenue distribution of LSSC considering fairness preference. Topics within this framework certainly need to be investigated and examined further to expand scientific as well as practical knowledge. The manuscript needs various revisions in terms of content and formatting, in accordance with the academic standards of the journal. Please find these comments in the following paragraphs.

 

The manuscript is in need of English proofreading in order to eliminate some language shortcomings (e.g., typos; lack of agreement between subject and verb).

 

Please do not use contracted versions like “can’t” in academic writing. It is better to use the extended version like “cannot”.

 

Lines 63-64: “does revenue comparison exists…” should be “does revenue comparison exist”.

 

Line 99: “only pursue the maximization…” should be “only pursues the maximization”.  

 

Line 105: “is limited self-interest”. The meaning is not clear. I suggest you change this to “had limited self-interest”.

 

Line 117: The word “function” is written in uppercase. I guess this is a typo. Please write it in lowercase.

 

Lines 316-317: There is no need to include computer details in the manuscript. It is sufficient that you mentioned the software you used. My suggestion would be to delete these details.

 

Line 324: The formula needs a bit of formatting, there are no spaces between words and numbers.

 

Line 698: The words in “Figure25” are written all together. Please insert a blank space between them. The same issue also in line 684.

 

Line 738: The correct spelling is “cannot”, not “can not”.

 

Regarding the conclusions section, please provide some policy implications of your study. The section is too short.

 

Please adapt the manner in which you number articles in the manuscript in line with the journal requirements. The style you are currently using sometimes eliminates the blank space between the reference number and the following word. I suggest you to simply number references as in [1], and not as a superscript.

 

Please format references in a uniform manner, following the journal requirements. Currently, the style you use is mixed and inconsistent.

 

Please pay attention to the in-text citations. In the reference list you included the paper of Karakostas et al., but in text you refer to it as only “Karakostas [42]”. See line 186 and amend this aspect.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their hard work and helpful suggestions, which are very important to improve the quality of the paper. We try our best to revise the paper according to the questions and suggestions, all of the revised parts are marked in blue. An illustration is given below. 

Reply to the questions and suggestions (reviewer 1):

1. The manuscript is in need of English proofreading in order to eliminate some language shortcomings (e.g., typos; lack of agreement between subject and verb).

Reply: The entire paper has been checked again. The found problems are revised.

2. Please do not use contracted versions like “can’t” in academic writing. It is better to use the extended version like “cannot”.

Reply: We completely agree with you. The paper has been checked again, and this kind of problems are revised.

3. Lines 63-64: “does revenue comparison exists…” should be “does revenue comparison exist”.

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised.

 

4. Line 99: “only pursue the maximization…” should be “only pursues the maximization”.  

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised.

5. Line 105: “is limited self-interest”. The meaning is not clear. I suggest you change this to “had limited self-interest”.

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised.

6. Line 117: The word “function” is written in uppercase. I guess this is a typo. Please write it in lowercase.

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised.

7. Lines 316-317: There is no need to include computer details in the manuscript. It is sufficient that you mentioned the software you used. My suggestion would be to delete these details.

Reply: The sentences have been deleted.

8. Line 324: The formula needs a bit of formatting, there are no spaces between words and numbers.

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised.

9. Line 698: The words in “Figure25” are written all together. Please insert a blank space between them. The same issue also in line 684.

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised, and all of the figures have been checked and revised.

10. Line 738: The correct spelling is “cannot”, not “can not”.

Reply: Thank you, it has been revised.

11. Regarding the conclusions section, please provide some policy implications of your study. The section is too short.

Reply: In conclusions, we discussed more about the managerial suggestions and policy implications.

12. Please adapt the manner in which you number articles in the manuscript in line with the journal requirements. The style you are currently using sometimes eliminates the blank space between the reference number and the following word. I suggest you to simply number references as in [1], and not as a superscript.

Reply: Yes, the number of references has been revised in the last section and the manuscript, see the last section References and the main body of the paper.

13. Please format references in a uniform manner, following the journal requirements. Currently, the style you use is mixed and inconsistent.

Reply: The references have been revised according to the template of sustainability.

14. Please pay attention to the in-text citations. In the reference list you included the paper of Karakostas et al., but in text you refer to it as only “Karakostas [42]”. See line 186 and amend this aspect.

Reply: Yes, we have revised this kind of problem.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on“Improved BO Model based Revenue Distribution of Logistics Service Supply Chain Considering Fairness Preference.”

Authors studied revenue distribution model considering Logistics Service integrator and several functional logistics service providers (FLSP) with FLSPs’ inequity aversion. I have some major concerns regarding the article.

1. Authors should avoid using short forms/abbreviations in title of the manuscript.
2. BO model has been mentioned several times in abstract, introduction, and literature review. However, authors have not mentioned what is BO model? What is full form of the BO model? There are important for the new readers.
3. What is FS model? Nothing has been mentioned about it, why? Do authors think that all the readers know this topic before?
4. Authors stated, “In this paper, an improved revenue distribution decision model is established,” But How? Nothing has been mentioned about this.
5. Please, provide some details about “Fair-neutral revenue distribution model” What is it and why it used here?
6. Authors stated. “For the convenience of calculation, it is assumed that the efficiency coefficient of all enterprises is 1” Then what is the significance of the model? Why its value is assumed 1, what will be the impact if the values is 0.5?
7. Authors used the input parametric data from reference [50]. Can they provide comparison of results to the same study? If not, why?
8. Implications of the model are missing.
9. The entire manuscript should be written in the third person plural or singular perspective. Please avoid the use of "we" and "our" in the revised manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their hard work and helpful suggestions, which are very important to improve the quality of the paper. We try our best to revise the paper according to the questions and suggestions, all of the revised parts are marked in blue. An illustration is given below. 

Reply to the questions and suggestions (reviewer 2):

1. Authors should avoid using short forms/abbreviations in title of the manuscript.

Reply: According to reviewer’s suggestions, we revised the title, the abbreviations ‘BO model’ is deleted, and the new titlle is “An Improved Revenue Distribution Model for Logistics Service Supply Chain Considering Fairness Preference”

2. BO model has been mentioned several times in abstract, introduction, and literature review. However, authors have not mentioned what is BO model? What is full form of the BO model? There are important for the new readers.

Reply: The BO model is an abbreviation of the model proposed by Bolton and Ockenfels in 2000 to quantitatively describe the equity or fairness preference relationship between people or organizations. We have enhanced the explain in Abstract (page 1) and Introduction (page 2).

3. What is FS model? Nothing has been mentioned about it, why? Do authors think that all the readers know this topic before?

Reply: FS model is an is an abbreviation of the model proposed by Fehr and Schmidt in 1999, the model quantitatively defines fairness as self-centered inequity aversion. We have enhanced the explain in Literature review page 3, where the ‘FS model’ first appeared.

4. Authors stated, “In this paper, an improved revenue distribution decision model is established,” But How? Nothing has been mentioned about this.

Reply: The basic revenue distribution decision model is shown by formula (1)-(7). The improved revenue distribution decision model is a general description. Specifically, the model shown by formula (8)-(16) is the improved revenue distribution decision model, which exploits state-of-the-art of BO model.

5. Please, provide some details about “Fair-neutral revenue distribution model” What is it and why it used here?

Reply: The purpose of our paper is to investigate the impact of fairness preference on revenue distribution of logistics service supply chain and give a quantitative study method. How to show the advantages of our work? We need to compare the experimental result from the conventional works, such as ‘Fair-neutral revenue distribution model’, with our work ‘improved revenue distribution model considering the inequity aversion’. We have revised this part, see section 4.2 Modeling in page 7. “The fair-neutral revenue distribution model is the base of the improved revenue distribution model, and the experimental results of the fair-neutral revenue distribution model will be used to compare with the proposed improved revenue distribution model. Then, considering the inequity aversion of FLSP i, the BO model^[14] is applied to describe the fairness preference of FLSP i. Finally, on the basis of the previous, an improved model of revenue distribution is established”

6. Authors stated. “For the convenience of calculation, it is assumed that the efficiency coefficient of all enterprises is 1” Then what is the significance of the model? Why its value is assumed 1, what will be the impact if the values is 0.5?

Reply: The efficiency coefficient stands for the efficiency of enterprises (logistics service integrator or functional logistics service providers) when they make effort to finish the contract. The value of efficiency coefficient for all enterprises are in the range [0, 1], that is ,. We referred to previous works, efficiency of enterprises (logistics service integrator or functional logistics service providers) are often set a same value, that means the enterprises have the same efficiency. In the section of ‘Initial data’, the values of efficiency coefficient is 1. If the values of efficiency coefficient is 0.5, the revenue of enterprises and the supply chain will decline, but the percentage of the decline will be the same. Therefore, the values of efficiency coefficient will not affect the relationship of the enterprises and their decision behaviors, and it will not affect the further analyze of the paper.

7. Authors used the input parametric data from reference [50]. Can they provide comparison of results to the same study? If not, why?

Reply: Our paper and the reference [50] have some similar points, and also have more different points. For the similar points, they have similar structures on members of supply chain, a two-echelon logistics service supply chain with LSI and FLSPs is studied in both reference [50] and our paper; The equity or fairness preference are considered more or less by the two papers.

However, there more difference between them:

(1) Reference [50] discussed more complex structures than our paper, except two-echelon logistics service supply chain, three-echelon logistics service supply chain is also discussed with ‘one to one’ and ‘one to N’ types.

(2) The situations of supply chains are different. In reference [50], the characteristic of mass customization is considered in the logistics service supply chain, but logistics service supply chain in our paper is a general one.

(3) The objective of the two papers are different. The major objective of reference [50] is to max the fair entropy, that is a direct measure of equity or fairness preference. The objective of our paper is to max the utility of revenue, the equity or fairness preference is considered indirectly.

Based on the points above, we have to revise the initial data in reference [50] and make them more suitable for our objectives. In summary, the two paper have similar structures, but different angles, and they cannot simply been compared with each other.

8. Implications of the model are missing.

Reply: Thank you very much for your advices. This paper establishes an improved revenue distribution model considering FLSPs’ inequity aversion. Specifically, the BO model (abbreviation of a model proposed by Bolton and Ockenfels in 2000) is improved to describe the FLSPs’ inequity aversion. In this way, the fairness preference is combined into the conventional revenue distribution model, which is the major improvement of the paper. The Abstract and section 4.2 Modeling are both revised to give a clearer description.

9. The entire manuscript should be written in the third person plural or singular perspective. Please avoid the use of "we" and "our" in the revised manuscript.

Reply: We completely agree with you. The entire paper has been checked and rewritten in the third person plural.

Reviewer 3 Report

Improved BO Model based Revenue Distribution of Logistics Service Supply Chain Considering Fairness Preference

 

This paper establishes an improved revenue distribution model considering FLSPs’ inequity aversion. In addition, the BO model is improved to describe the FLSPs’ inequity aversion. The model aims to maximize the revenue of logistics service supply chain, and obtains the best revenue distribution ratio of each member under equilibrium. In the numerical cases, the impacts of inequity aversion and the number of members with inequity aversion on the revenue distribution are discussed

 

1. Why “Fairness Preference” is needed for Logistics 2 Service Supply Chain Distribution? This point must discuss in the introduction and abstract
2. If the BO model is improved to describe the FLSPs’ inequity aversion and why do propose Fairness Preference ?
3. The performance literature review is extensive and covers the relevant material with a considerable degree of insight. The paper is very well structured. The material is well presented I would suggest the author to discuss these references in your context and references.
4. Your conclusions' section needs to underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Basically, you should enhance your findings, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your contributions/shortages and future study in this session. Mohammad Yavari & Parinaz Ajalli (2021) Suppliers’ coalition strategy for green-Resilient supply chain network design, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:3, 197-212, DOI: 1080/21681015.2021.1883134; Javid Ghahremani Nahr, Seyed Hamid Reza Pasandideh & Seyed Taghi Akhavan Niaki (2020) A robust optimization approach for multi-objective, multi-product, multi-period, closed-loop green supply chain network designs under uncertainty and discount, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 37:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2017.1421591

The literature review should be discussed more. The developed model is quite well described, and appears quite impressive. The findings and results of the case study are also very impressive. The results are clearly analyzed and well argued. The discussion and conclusions are clear and persuasive.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their hard work and helpful suggestions, which are very important to improve the quality of the paper. We try our best to revise the paper according to the questions and suggestions, all of the revised parts are marked in blue. An illustration is given below. 

Reply to the questions and suggestions (reviewer 3):

1. Why “Fairness Preference” is needed for Logistics Service Supply Chain Distribution? This point must discuss in the introduction and abstract

Reply: Yes, the reasons of considering fairness Preference should be given. In abstract (page 1) and introduction (page 1-2), more discussions have been included.

2. If the BO model is improved to describe the FLSPs’ inequity aversion and why do propose Fairness Preference ?

Reply: We make an explain about the relationship between fairness preference and BO model, and wish that is helpful for you to understand our work. Fairness preference is kind of bounded rationality, which is a common phenomenon among peoples. BO model is one of the popular quantitative method, which is used to evaluate the degree of peoples’ fairness preference. However, for the specific conditions of revenue distribution in a LSSC, the BO model should be improved and then used to describe the current problem.

3. The performance literature review is extensive and covers the relevant material with a considerable degree of insight. The paper is very well structured. The material is well presented I would suggest the author to discuss these references in your context and references.

Reply: Yes, we try to include the references into the context and discuss them.

4. Your conclusions' section needs to underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Basically, you should enhance your findings, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your contributions/shortages and future study in this session. Mohammad Yavari & Parinaz Ajalli (2021) Suppliers’ coalition strategy for green-Resilient supply chain network design, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:3, 197-212, DOI: 1080/21681015.2021.1883134; Javid Ghahremani Nahr, Seyed Hamid Reza Pasandideh & Seyed Taghi Akhavan Niaki (2020) A robust optimization approach for multi-objective, multi-product, multi-period, closed-loop green supply chain network designs under uncertainty and discount, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 37:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2017.1421591

Reply: The conclusions is revised. The contribution, potential applications and future study of the paper are enhanced. The list references are very important, and they have been cited.

5. The literature review should be discussed more. The developed model is quite well described, and appears quite impressive. The findings and results of the case study are also very impressive. The results are clearly analyzed and well argued. The discussion and conclusions are clear and persuasive.

Reply: The literature review is revised according to the advices, some important references are added.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did well to improve the article, thanks 

Reviewer 3 Report

accepted