A Novel Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach for Post-COVID-19 Production Strategies in Vietnam Manufacturing Industry: OPA–Fuzzy EDAS Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, author addresses a multi-criteria assessment approach for post-COVID19 production strategies in Vietnam manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, the quality of proposed work is not good according to the following comments:
1.      In introduction section authors do not explain the significance of proposed method.
2.      There is a major need to revise the article, because there are several grammatical mistakes in native English writing.
3.      Overall presentation of paper is not attractive.
4.      The advantages and disadvantages section is not included.
5.      Novelty of new concept is not enough for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Author entitled “A Novel Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach for Post- 2 COVID19 Production Strategies in Vietnam Manufacturing Industry: OPA–Fuzzy EDAS model” written well. However I would like to point out some corrections for improvements

1. The author is advised to summarize the final outcomes in abstract and conclusion section with numerical results.
2. In table 2 H. M. M. Taqi et al. [26] data was not filled like methods and other relevant information
3. Author selected Fuzzy EDAS method for analysing post-COVID19 production strategies for Vietnam Manufacturing Industry. Author need elaborate regarding this OPA-Fuzzy EDAS model. Why author selected this for production strategies ?
4. In Fig 1. Stage -1 Ordinal Priority Approach was mentioned but author could highlight these approach in the manuscript for better understanding and its features.
5. Expert selection and expert ranking was mentioned in the fig1. I could find any relevant information regarding this. Why expert ranking and selection was applied and what is the necessity ? Author need to clear about this.
6. Author could include Experimental set up information with more clarity to understand the final outcomes of the research. Simulation set up and its environment information could be included.
7. Performance validation parameter and its mathematical derivation could be included. Since the final results could be evaluated some parameters.
8. Language correction must be done as well as grammatical errors can be avoided.

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well prepared although its scientific significance is in my opinion small because the analyzed problem is an incidental circumstance and the general conclusions are limited and rather obvious.

Selection or qualification the right strategy is natural process of adaptation to new condition and the analysis carried out doesn’t indicate the main issue – how the presented method helped in choosing the right strategy? Strategy ranking alone is not enough.

Despite these comments, I recommend the article for publication, because the presented calculations explicity show the method that can be used by other researchers.

 

Other comments:

31 and 252: in mine opinion fuel prices did not rise due to covid. When I checked the price chart for example crude oil (WTI) prices in 2020-21 were lower or stable. Maybe the issue is related to the local market or the price jump was very short but it has not been indicated.

76: double citation [10] is redundant. One time is enough.

373: two times “short term impacts”.

Table 9 and 11 are practically the same only with the values resulting from table 10. I think Table 9 and 11 should be merged.

Fig. 2 and Table 7 show the same so the chart is redundant.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

 

1. In the abstract, the contribution and one or two policy implications must be added.
2. Do not use abbreviations in the keywords.
3. As a first contribution, the results of this study provide useful references for manufacturers to recover and move forward after the pandemic.

Justify the above arguments how this study results are useful.

4. The authors did not develop OPA-Fuzzy EDAS integrated approach technique so it can’t be considered as contribution, so authors need to revise contribution of the study and add the research questions which are addressed in this study.
5. Check these citations on line 73 Kumar et al.

Line 75 S.G. Deshmukh and A. Haleem

Line 79 P. Tao et al.

Line 82 M. Cugno et al

Line 85 R. Marimuthu et al.

Line 89 S. Yao

Line 93 A. G. Ghoferh et al.

These citations are not consistent with the journal formatting.

6. The authors only add one study in table 2 for year 2022 so its important to add more latest studies.
7. Check citation Line 104-105 Yao

Check citation Line 107 M. Ilyas et al.

Check citation Line 111 R. Marimuthu

Check citation Line 112 S. K. Paul et al.

Check citation Line 115 H. M. M. Taqi et al.

Check citation Line 118 M. Alkahtani et al.

8. The authors can add following papers to strengthen their literature review section.

[1] Zhuang, M., Zhu, W., Huang, L. and Pan, W.-T. (2021), "Research of influence mechanism of corporate social responsibility for smart cities on consumers' purchasing intention", Library Hi Tech, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-11-2020-0290

[2] Lei, W., Hui, Z., Xiang, L., Zelin, Z., Xu-Hui, X.,... Evans, S. (2021). Optimal Remanufacturing Service Resource Allocation for Generalized Growth of Retired Mechanical Products: Maximizing Matching Efficiency. IEEE access, 9, 89655-89674. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3089896

[3] Pan, D., & Chen, H. (2021). Border pollution reduction in China: The role of livestock environmental regulations. China economic review, 69, 101681. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2021.101681

9. Check citation Line 158 Ataei et al.
10. a group of ten experts was formed and surveyed on the negative impacts of the pandemic and production strategies that could help mitigate those impacts

Does a data of 10 people good enough to produce results? Please justify

11. The authors add lot of tables and just describe the results and I did not find the in-depth discussion of these outcome. So, authors must improve this part.
12. I did not find the policy implication based on findings.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable reviews.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Contribution seen in the paper is very less. 

Section 3, 4, 5 are elementary. Not looking good for indexed journal. 

Also in introduction there is no motivation and research gaps seen.  

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

If possible, please provide us with more detailed arguments.

Reviewer 2 Report

My previous comments was rectified by the author. However author need to make sure that language proof is necessary before proceeds to the publication

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your valuable comments. Thanks for these contributions.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors addressed all the comments so I have no further comments.