A Mass-Customization-Based Remanufacturing Scheme Design Method for Used Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “A mass-customization-based remanufacturing scheme design method for used products” is very well written and logically structured. The paper is very related to the journal “sustainability”. In this work, the authors proposed an MC-based Remanufacturing scheme design (RSD) method for used products that can satisfy customers’ individual demands and the inherent remanufacturing demand (IRD). The comments are:
More contents should be added into the first paragraph into Introduction. For example, “unreasonable remanufacturing scheme will lead to increased consumption of energy and materials, which will lose the advantages of remanufacturing.” What are unreasonable remanufacturing schemes? Are there some related papers for this statement? It is better to highlight it.
The writing is acceptable, but it still can be further polished.
Author Response
The paper entitled “A mass-customization-based remanufacturing scheme design method for used products” is very well written and logically structured. The paper is very related to the journal “sustainability”. In this work, the authors proposed an MC-based Remanufacturing scheme design (RSD) method for used products that can satisfy customers’ individual demands and the inherent remanufacturing demand (IRD). The comments are:
More contents should be added into the first paragraph into Introduction. For example, “unreasonable remanufacturing scheme will lead to increased consumption of energy and materials, which will lose the advantages of remanufacturing.” What are unreasonable remanufacturing schemes? Are there some related papers for this statement? It is better to highlight it.
Respond: Many thanks for your suggestions, we have added more contents and marked it in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, congratulations on your interesting work: “A mass-customization-based remanufacturing scheme design method for used products”.
Overall, I believe that the article needs to be corrected. Therefore, I would like to ask you to add the following corrections to improve your work:
- - The introduction, in my opinion, is too extensive. The more so because it is followed by chapter “2. Literature review”,
- - Please clearly emphasize what the purpose of the work is,
- - Please emphasize in the text whether the diagram presented in Fig. 1 is a study by the authors of the work or it was created on the basis of literature premises.
- - At work, please avoid scoring that is inappropriate in my opinion, for example: (page 7) “3.1.1. CD analysis .... (1). CD data collection”
- - Please emphasize in the text whether the diagram presented in Fig. 4 is a study by the authors of the work or it was created on the basis of literature premises.
- - Figures 6 and 7 presented in the paper are based on the work: "Wenhao Huang, Zhigang Jiang, Teng Wang, Yan Wang and Xiaoli Hu: Remanufacturing Scheme Design for Used Parts Based on Incomplete Information Reconstruction". Therefore, in my opinion, I think it should be marked here.
- - Table 9. Specifies “Coordinate values of the nodes”. Please specify the accuracy with which we can enter this information during machining on CNC machines. Are the given coordinates here not exaggerated?
- In my opinion, both the Discussion and the Conclusions and future work are too general and refer to the literature data and not the presented results.
Author Response
- The introduction, in my opinion, is too extensive. The more so because it is followed by chapter “2. Literature review”,please clearly emphasize what the purpose of the work is.
Respond: Many thanks for your suggestions. I have deleted the unnecessary text in the introduction.
Meanwhile, this study involves more contents and new concepts, including demand analysis, remanufacturing type determination, restoration remanufacturing and upgrading remanufacturing, and the concept of inherent remanufacturing demand is also proposed. The introduction part needs to introduce the whole research background, related research contents and concepts, so the introduction is more content. The literature review section mainly introduces the research progress and methods in demand analysis and solution generation from these two points, and proposes the technical means used in this study by summarizing and analyzing previous studies.
In addition, the purpose of the work is to quickly design a reasonable remanufacturing solution to meet the mass customization remanufacturing of used products.
- Please emphasize in the text whether the diagram presented in Fig. 1 is a study by the authors of the work or it was created on the basis of literature premises.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. The diagram presented in Fig. 1 is a study by the authors of the work.
- At work, please avoid scoring that is inappropriate in my opinion, for example: (page 7) “1.1. CD analysis .... (1). CD data collection”
Respond: Many thanks for your suggestions. This is just a scoring sample and I have adjusted the scoring.
- Please emphasize in the text whether the diagram presented in Fig. 4 is a study by the authors of the work or it was created on the basis of literature premises.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. The diagram presented in Fig. 4 is a study by the authors of the work.
- Figures 6 and 7 presented in the paper are based on the work: "Wenhao Huang, Zhigang Jiang, Teng Wang, Yan Wang and Xiaoli Hu: Remanufacturing Scheme Design for Used Parts Based on Incomplete Information Reconstruction". Therefore, in my opinion, I think it should be marked here.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have marked in the text.
- Table 9. Specifies “Coordinate values of the nodes”. Please specify the accuracy with which we can enter this information during machining on CNC machines. Are the given coordinates here not exaggerated?
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. The coordinate values are the nodes of broken part model, and these coordinate values are applied to calculate the parameter values for laser cladding, then the broken part of the gear is repaired according to the parameter values, without inputting the coordinate values into the CNC machine.
- In my opinion, both the Discussion and the Conclusions and future work are too general and refer to the literature data and not the presented results.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have modified the discussion and the conclusion and future work, and marked them in red.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A mass-customization-based remanufacturing scheme design method for used products. it is an interesting topic and the paper can be improved by addressing the following comments:
In Abstract "However, the quantity of the used products is growing rapidly....". I think 'remanufactured product' can be written instead of 'used product'.
authors should mention the outcome of the paper in the abstract section. Authors should add one sentence about the outcome/result and one sentence about the managerial implication in the abstract section.
The Introduction section is very big and also does not connect with respect to work. what are the research questions and research objectives need to be mentioned clearly in the Introduction section.
The literature review is poorly organised. I have never seen any research gap as a sub-section, which is very important for proving the novelty of the paper. Recently, there are a lot of papers published in the remanufacturing area such as https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01713-5; DOI: 10.4018/IJISSCM.2018070104. that need to be updated in the literature review section.
what represents the demand intensity scale 1-5 in tables data need to be furnished.
I wonder that there is no acknowledgment of results by previous studies, try to add some validation of your result with the literature backup
The conclusion section looks like a summary, there is no in-depth insight in this section, and the managerial implications are also not addressed.
Author Response
A mass-customization-based remanufacturing scheme design method for used products. it is an interesting topic and the paper can be improved by addressing the following comments:
- In Abstract "However, the quantity of the used products is growing rapidly....". I think 'remanufactured product' can be written instead of 'used product'.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have modified it according to your comments.
- Authors should mention the outcome of the paper in the abstract section. Authors should add one sentence about the outcome/result and one sentence about the managerial implication in the abstract section.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have added some sentence about the outcome, please see the abstract.
- The introduction section is very big and also does not connect with respect to work. what are the research questions and research objectives need to be mentioned clearly in the Introduction section.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have mentioned the research questions and research objectives in the second paragraph of the introduction, and I have marked them in red.
- The literature review is poorly organised. I have never seen any research gap as a sub-section, which is very important for proving the novelty of the paper. Recently, there are a lot of papers published in the remanufacturing area such as https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01713-5; DOI: 10.4018/IJISSCM.2018070104. that need to be updated in the literature review section.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. The literature review is classified according to design steps, mainly including remanufacturing demand analysis and remanufacturing scheme generation. Through the literature review of these two parts, the methods used in this study are proposed. Moreover, I have added citations to the relevant literature, and marked them in red.
- What represents the demand intensity scale 1-5 in tables data need to be furnished.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. The meaning of the demand intensity has represented in page 9 line 9, and I have marked them in red.
- I wonder that there is no acknowledgment of results by previous studies, try to add some validation of your result with the literature backup.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have added some validation of our results with the literature backup, and marked them in red.
- The conclusion section looks like a summary, there is no in-depth insight in this section, and the managerial implications are also not addressed.
Respond: Many thanks for your comments. I have modified the conclusion and the future work, and marked them in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have incorporated almost all the comments. The manuscript may be accepted in its current form.
