Research on Sustainable Cooperation Strategies for Cross-Regional Supply Chain Enterprises in Uncertain Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present paper, the fuzzy characteristics of cross-regional supply chain enterprises cooperation and the sustainable cooperation strategies of cross-regional supply chain enterprises in uncertain environments are studied. The problem statement and methodology explanation are clear and convincing. Mathematical results are clearly presented and their proofs seems to be correct. The paper is recommended for publication after minor correction

1. All notations to be rechecked.

 

2.The manuscripts need careful proofreading to fix typos and grammatical errors.

 

3.The  conclusion section should include the  advantages of the proposed method compared to other methods appeared in the literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the paper should be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement and guidance. We will continue to improve and look forward to your continued guidance. See the response to reviewers.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your manuscript. The work presented here is very valuable, well developed and based on a very sound mathematical model. I appreciate that despite the nature of this manuscript, you present very strong and relevant managerial implications and suggestions for future research. 

I have a few minor questions or comments on how to improve your manuscript for publishing: 

- in the context of your study, what makes the cross-regional supply chain cross-regional? What is a region, and why and how are cross-regional supply chains different from regional? Could they be positioned on a scale from regional, cross-regional, international, global supply chains? You start you study (and literature review) at a very high level so this gets just glanced over in the first lines of the introduction.

- the literature review section reads more as a checklist of all relevant work ("AB studied XY") without stating why do they provide value to your research, which results in this section being hard to read. This only comes as a very short paragraph at the end of each subsection. I suggest integrating each of these comments into the main text and separating the text in more paragraphs. 

- are there any limitations to your study? E.g., lack of empirics, limits of the model? 

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement and guidance. We will continue to improve and look forward to your continued guidance. See the response to reviewers.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments:

1. In this paper the authors have dealt with Sustainable Cooperation Strategies for Cross-regional Supply Chain Enterprises in Uncertain Environments.

2. The presentation of the paper is good and satisfactory.

3. The literature review part is also good which you have taken in this work because most of the references are taken from recent years. Add a few more recent year articles(i.e., from 2021, 22, 23) that have related to your work, if it is possible.

4. Figures and results tables everything is good.

5. How you are claiming that your method gives a better solution than the existing methods or how does your method differ from the existing methods because there is no comparison table I have seen in this work? So, you should include the comparison table.

6. Visualize your results so that the readers can understand them easily.

7. And also include the flowchart of your proposed method to understand the procedure more simply.

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement and guidance. We will continue to improve and look forward to your continued guidance. See the response to reviewers.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the whole of the paper. In this paper, the authors considered the fuzzy characteristics of cross-regional supply chain enterprises' co-operation and the sustainability of re-cooperation, and studied the sustainable co- operation strategies of cross-regional supply chain enterprises in uncertain environments.

It is a compherensive study on the subject.  This comprehensive study will shed light on those who will work on the subject. The literature review is quite extensive.  Theorems and numerical simulation application are quite appropriate.

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement and guidance. We will continue to improve and look forward to your continued guidance. See the response to reviewers.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strengths:

1. The paper addresses an important and complex issue in the field of supply chain management, specifically focusing on cross-regional supply chain enterprises.
2. The introduction of fuzzy participation degree and the generalized redistribution coefficient to describe the problem of cooperation and benefit allocation is innovative.
3. The construction of a fuzzy average monotone game to study the strategies of these enterprises is a novel approach.
4. The paper successfully proves the equivalence between the generalized fuzzy core and the generalized fuzzy bargaining set of the fuzzy average monotone game.
5. The research results provide a theoretical basis for the cooperation and benefit reallocation of cross-regional supply chain enterprises under uncertain environments.

Areas for Improvement:

1. The paper could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the concepts introduced, such as the fuzzy participation degree, the generalized redistribution coefficient, and the fuzzy average monotone game.
2. The methodology section could be expanded to provide more clarity on how the research was conducted.
3. The paper could include more real-world examples or case studies to illustrate the concepts and theories proposed.
4. The conclusion could summarize the key findings more succinctly and highlight the implications of the research for the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement and guidance. We will continue to improve and look forward to your continued guidance. See the response to reviewers.docx.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf