An Efficient Smart Pharmaceutical Packaging Technology Framework to Assess the Quality of Returned Medication through Non-Intrusively Recording Storage Conditions after Dispensation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting conceptual framework, but it needs to be enhanced by a structured literature review to offer a significant contribution to the scientific community. 

1. The abstract doesn't follow the journal's guidelines.

2. In the introduction, the authors should add a paragraph about advancements in circular economy and reverse supply chain as well as technological advancements in the supply chain and talk about relevant papers: 

Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Konstantakopoulos, G. D., & Papadopoulos, G. A. (2022). A Predictive Maintenance System for Reverse Supply Chain Operations. Logistics, 6(1), 4.

Hrouga, M., Sbihi, A., & Chavallard, M. (2022). The potentials of combining Blockchain technology and Internet of Things for digital reverse supply chain: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130609.

Liu, S., Zhang, J., Niu, B., Liu, L., & He, X. (2022). A novel hybrid multi-criteria group decision-making approach with intuitionistic fuzzy sets to design reverse supply chains for COVID-19 medical waste recycling channels. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 169, 108228.

Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Panayiotou, N. A. (2022). A Business Process Reference Model for the Development of a Wine Traceability System. Sustainability, 14(18), 11687.

Sadowski, A. (2023). Reverse Logistics for Sustainable Waste-Management Processes. In Sustainable Logistics (pp. 73-97). Productivity Press.

3. The paper has too many very short paragraphs that weaken its structure and clarity. It needs to be strongly reformed, and each paragraph needs to be individually coherent. Three lines of a single sentence cannot be a paragraph. 

4. The main issue is that the discussion is at a very theoretical (conceptual) level without offering any technological development or any demonstration of data that shows that the system works. This is just a theoretical framework with no contribution to the scientific society, and in its current form, it can't be considered suitable for publication. 

5. Similar to the previous comment, the paper lacks the mandatory results section. In order to strengthen the paper, I suggest that the authors perform a structured literature review using a query in SCOPUS and present the literature review results. The current review of the authors is spontaneous and doesn't lead to any significant trends or results. Similar reviews are the following:

El Baz, J., & Iddik, S. (2022). Green supply chain management and organizational culture: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus data (2001-2020). International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 156-179. 

Kamaruzzaman, W. M. I. W. M., Nasir, N. A. M., Hamidi, N. A. S. M., Yusof, N., Shaifudin, M. S., Suhaimi, A. M. A. A. M., ... & Ghazali, M. S. M. (2022). 25 years of progress on plants as corrosion inhibitors through a bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database (1995–2020). Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 15(4), 103655.

Author Response

Thank you to reviewer #1, we found your comments very useful. We believe we have addressed them all. We comment below and have submitted a marked up version of the new paper.

 

• The abstract doesn't follow the journal's guidelines.

Thank you. The abstract was reworked to follow the journal’s guidelines and follow the structure as laid out by reviewer 2.

 

• In the introduction, the authors should add a paragraph about advancements in circular economy and reverse supply chain as well as technological advancements in the supply chain and talk about relevant papers: 
• Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Konstantakopoulos, G. D., & Papadopoulos, G. A. (2022). A Predictive Maintenance System for Reverse Supply Chain Operations. Logistics, 6(1), 4.
• Hrouga, M., Sbihi, A., & Chavallard, M. (2022). The potentials of combining Blockchain technology and Internet of Things for digital reverse supply chain: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130609.
• Liu, S., Zhang, J., Niu, B., Liu, L., & He, X. (2022). A novel hybrid multi-criteria group decision-making approach with intuitionistic fuzzy sets to design reverse supply chains for COVID-19 medical waste recycling channels. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 169, 108228.
• Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Panayiotou, N. A. (2022). A Business Process Reference Model for the Development of a Wine Traceability System. Sustainability, 14(18), 11687.
• Sadowski, A. (2023). Reverse Logistics for Sustainable Waste-Management Processes. In Sustainable Logistics (pp. 73-97). Productivity Press.

A section outlining the advancements in CE, and RL in the scope of Industry 4.0 was added using the papers above.

• The paper has too many very short paragraphs that weaken its structure and clarity. It needs to be strongly reformed, and each paragraph needs to be individually coherent. Three lines of a single sentence cannot be a paragraph. 

The paper was revised to add a more professional structure by combining any shorter paragraphs into more cohesive larger paragraphs.

• The main issue is that the discussion is at a very theoretical (conceptual) level without offering any technological development or any demonstration of data that shows that the system works. This is just a theoretical framework with no contribution to the scientific society, and in its current form, it can't be considered suitable for publication. 

This was very useful. The focus of the paper was shifted on a structured literature review with the value of the contributions and proposals within this paper being further highlighted. Future work that will be carried out to develop and assess the proposals in this paper were also outlined.

• Similar to the previous comment, the paper lacks the mandatory results section. In order to strengthen the paper, I suggest that the authors perform a structured literature review using a query in SCOPUS and present the literature review results. The current review of the authors is spontaneous and doesn't lead to any significant trends or results. Similar reviews are the following:
• El Baz, J., & Iddik, S. (2022). Green supply chain management and organizational culture: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus data (2001-2020). International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 156-179. 
• Kamaruzzaman, W. M. I. W. M., Nasir, N. A. M., Hamidi, N. A. S. M., Yusof, N., Shaifudin, M. S., Suhaimi, A. M. A. A. M., ... & Ghazali, M. S. M. (2022). 25 years of progress on plants as corrosion inhibitors through a bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database (1995–2020). Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 15(4), 103655.

The methods used to carry out the original structured literature review were detailed. Sources that were added at a later date were relocated to the background if necessary to add context to the research (or removed if irrelevant). The layout and contributions of the similar papers suggested were taken into account and used for inspiration in restructuring the review.

Again, much appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

- The writing of the paper needs a lot of improvement in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The paper needs careful English polishing since there are many typos and poorly written sentences.
Some examples are as the following:

*Check the usage of the commas carefully.

* Check the articles including "a", "an" and "the".

* Check the required and unneeded blank spaces.

-        you need to look for recent studies and remove those that are more than 5 years, unless they are important. It is required that you look to further studies in high impact factor journals and limit to large extent those form conferences.

-        The first sentence in the abstract, it is necessary for the authors to add a sentence to describe the problem or motivation to focus on this topic. The second sentence should provide the literature gap. In the third sentence, the authors should say what you are doing, and then provide the empirical findings.

-        Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals.

-        Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions?

-        Literature Review has the chance to be further improved: it seems that the authors have made the retrospection. However, via the review, what issues should be addressed? What is the current specific knowledge gap? What implication can be referred to? The above questions should be answered. Please compare your contributions with A set of efficient heuristics and meta-heuristics to solve a multi-objective pharmaceutical supply chain network. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 158, 107389.

-        Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

-        I recommend strengthening the comparison with previous research. Please compare the results in this study with those in previous studies. Discuss the study findings here.

-        The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies?

-        It is suggested that the implication for managers be described in a paragraph of the conclusion section. In this paragraph, it should be explained how research outputs help relevant managers and readers.

- The writing of the paper needs a lot of improvement in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The paper needs careful English polishing since there are many typos and poorly written sentences.
Some examples are as the following:

*Check the usage of the commas carefully.

* Check the articles including "a", "an" and "the".

* Check the required and unneeded blank spaces.

Author Response

Thank you to reviewer #2, we found your comments very useful. We believe we have addressed them all. We comment below and have submitted a marked up version of the new paper.

 

• The writing of the paper needs a lot of improvement in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentations. The paper needs careful English polishing since there are many typos and poorly written sentences.
• Some examples are as the following:
• Check the usage of the commas carefully.
• Check the articles including "a", "an" and "the".
•  Check the required and unneeded blank spaces.

Thank you. The paper was reviewed and revised after any additional changes were made in order to remove typos and improve the general quality of English

Comments on Paper:

• you need to look for recent studies and remove those that are more than 5 years, unless they are important. It is required that you look to further studies in high impact factor journals and limit to large extent those form conferences.

Yes, we found this very useful. The literature review was reworked into a structured literature with any low value sources being removed or used to provide background within the field. All sources in the literature review were assessed for their relevance to ensure they all added value to the research.

• The first sentence in the abstract, it is necessary for the authors to add a sentence to describe the problem or motivation to focus on this topic. The second sentence should provide the literature gap. In the third sentence, the authors should say what you are doing, and then provide the empirical findings.

The abstract was reworked to follow the journal’s guidelines and follow the structure that was outlined.

• Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals.

Yes, good idea. A section entitled the state of the literature was added to overtly show the key gaps within the literature as well as how the paper addresses them. Within the state of the literature section, several ideas for the direction of future work were added to show how the field could potentially grow in the future. 

• Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions?

The research gaps were outlined in the literature review and conclusions sections with the contributions of the paper being presented in relation to these gaps.

• Literature Review has the chance to be further improved: it seems that the authors have made the retrospection. However, via the review, what issues should be addressed? What is the current specific knowledge gap? What implication can be referred to? The above questions should be answered. Please compare your contributions with A set of efficient heuristics and meta-heuristics to solve a multi-objective pharmaceutical supply chain network. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 158, 107389.

A section outlining the contribution of the theoretical CPSC was added at the start of section 3 relating it to the suggested paper as it was the part of the text with the closest relevance to the paper.

• Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Thank you. We are aware of the importance of the conclusion. The conclusion was reworked to further recount the findings/contributions of each section. The novelty, importance, limitations, applications, and future work that should be carried out  was highlighted for each section.

• I recommend strengthening the comparison with previous research. Please compare the results in this study with those in previous studies. Discuss the study findings here.

The contributions the paper were laid out within the background, and set within the context of the gaps within the literature in section 2 and the conclusion.

• The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies?

The background states the issues caused by medicine wastage globally stating that the issue will only worsen without intervention. The study identifies gaps in the literature, showing the infancy of the field, builds upon the findings to propose a solution to the barriers, in order to address these issues. 

Again, much appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting approach to the problem. Interesting discussion of RFID systems in pharma

Author Response

Thank you to reviewer #3, we appreciate your totally positive support.

 

• Very interesting approach to the problem. Interesting discussion of RFID systems in pharma.

Thank you for your feedback

Again, much appreciated.

Reviewer 4 Report

I think that to improve the paper authors have to do following things: 

1. Title is too long. 

2. Try to redefine the structure of your paper with respect to results and conclusions importance.

Please add:

* practical part

* part on the scientific dimension

* What are the limitations of the study?

* What are the future research directions?

3. Introduction - define and discuss the research gap and the main goal of paper. The contribution of the paper is not clear, thus, the authors shall to clarify the contribution in the introduction. 

4. Correct drawings. - Illegible (1,3) and detailed discussion of the drawings

5. Please make sure your conclusions' section undersc ore the scientific value added of your paper. Conclusion should include the answer to the research question posed and further directions of research.  

The Conclusion should be at the most general level possible. 

And answer the questions in the text:

what type of drugs can this system be used for?

What is the estimated cost of the solution?

Clearly indicate what new risk this system brings?

The solution is very high risk related to the safety of the product. How will it be minimized?

The solution is very socially risky. How to inform and convince people?

Author Response

Thank you to reviewer #4, we found your comments very useful. We believe we have addressed them all. We comment below and have submitted a marked up version of the new paper.

 

• Title is too long

Thank you for your comment. We have reflected on this. With respect, we have taken the decision not to change the title because we feel it reflects the work well and no other reviewers raised a concern. We hope you understand.

• Try to redefine the structure of your paper with respect to results and conclusions importance.

Yes, good idea. The literature review was restructured in order to further display its findings and the gaps within the field.

• Please add:
• practical part

Please note that we are currently developing the sensors, but the presented work is theoretical and fundamental which is needed to start the ‘ball rolling’.

• part on the scientific dimension

Thank you for your comment. We have updated the paper to emphasise the scientific novelty and we have also  improved the literature review.

• What are the limitations of the study?

Thank you for your comment. We have updated the paper to discuss the limitations. Please see the marked up version.

• What are the future research directions?

The potential applications and recommendations for future work on each section has been added in the conclusion, especially regarding the development and the assessment of SPaRAS.

• Introduction - define and discuss the research gap and the main goal of paper. The contribution of the paper is not clear, thus, the authors shall to clarify the contribution in the introduction. 

Yes, good idea. The goals and contributions of the paper have been reviewed and further outlined within the background and conclusions. A clear literature gap has now been shown within the restructured literature review and referenced throughout the paper.

• Correct drawings. - Illegible (1,3) and detailed discussion of the drawings.

Yes, good idea. We have reviewed the illustrations and improved the dpi.

• Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper. Conclusion should include the answer to the research question posed and further directions of research.  

The conclusion was reworked to further recount the findings/contributions of each section. The novelty, importance, limitations, applications, and future work that should be carried out  was highlighted for each section. A paragraph summing up the conclusions and highlighting the value of the research has also been added

• The Conclusion should be at the most general level possible And answer the questions in the text:
• what type of drugs can this system be used for?
• What is the estimated cost of the solution?
• Clearly indicate what new risk this system brings?
• The solution is very high risk related to the safety of the product. How will it be minimized?
• The solution is very socially risky. How to inform and convince people?

The suggested questions were answered within the reworked conclusion in the new version.

Again, much appreciated.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have greatly improved the paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment