Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 6th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 17th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 30th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 15th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 15, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear authors,

Your revised version of the paper has been accepted by both reviewers. Congratulations.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefan Wagner, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

I think the revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication.

Experimental design

I think the revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication.

Validity of the findings

I think the revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication.

Additional comments

I think the revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 ·

Basic reporting

Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout

Experimental design

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.

Validity of the findings

All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 17, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear auhtors,

Your paper has been reviewed by four reviewers, two of them required major revisions. Please correct the manuscript according to their suggestions, mark all changes, and provide a cover letter with replies to reviewers.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

In the paper, a variant of the hazmat vehicle routing problem of sharing IBCs is proposed. Temperature variation is considered and a mixed non-linear integer programming model is modeled with time windows. The model is optimized using a novel adaptive large neighborhood search (ALNS) algorithm.

Experimental design

By testing a series of Solomon benchmark instances, this study analyzed the impact of varying the looseness of the service time windows based on temperature levels on the computational results. The results indicate that the performance of the model is related to the characteristics of the test instances. Specifically, the optimization is more effective for clustered distributions and random distributions with fewer than 100 nodes. The improved ALNS algorithm exhibits smaller objective value errors and some negative values when handling these distributed instances, while the errors remain within a reasonable range in other cases. This suggests that the proposed algorithm performs well across various application scenarios.

Validity of the findings

The main innovation of the work were quantifying a temperature-based time windows integrated into
the hazmat vehicle routing optimal model. And, a novel heuristic operators are introduced in the ALNS algorithm. The numerical examples for Solomon set demonstrate that the proposed algorithm is suitable to solve this kind of hazmat vehicle routing optimal problem.

Additional comments

The following concerns are raised after reading the paper:
The related literature reviewed should be followed by a comprehensive research gap analysis;
The main contribution is not well described and justified;
The hazardous materials concept needs to be more elaborated with respect to different type of hazardous materials in the literature;
The significance of using integrated mixed non-linear integer programming model and an adaptive large neighborhood search in comparison with other techniques already worked out in the literature is not well explained;
What is exactly new in the mathematical formulations should be pointed out;
The numerical study needs more elaboration and analysis using more multi-dimension illustrations;
Tables need to be explained;
The managerial implications should be well discussed in the application areas of the approach.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

This paper presents a novel optimization method for hazardous materials vehicle routing with temperature-based time windows.
The paper describes a very useful topic, especially because it deals with the impact on human health and the environment.
The subject matter is relevance and appropriate to this journal. The paper is clearly and concisely written in accordance with technical instructions.

Experimental design

The subject presented in this paper is very topical and presented in a systematic way.
The methods applied in work are modern and provide a scientific contribution to the described problems.

Validity of the findings

This paper has good quality and it is original. The paper is written well and has enough contribution to be published.

Additional comments

Introduction needs more detail for a topic like this.
The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text.

Reviewer 4 ·

Basic reporting

Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.

Experimental design

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.

Validity of the findings

All underlying data have been poorly provided

Additional comments

The introduction provides relevant context but lacks a more detailed discussion of the specific knowledge gaps that this study addresses. Expand on how this work differentiates from existing studies on hazardous material transportation
The mathematical model section is difficult to follow in places. Provide clearer explanations for critical equations and add brief comments on the key assumptions directly within the text.
The parameters used in the ALNS algorithm and the bi-objective model should have more detailed justification. Explain how these values were selected or tuned to match real-world scenarios.
Include a more thorough comparison of the proposed ALNS algorithm with other state-of-the-art methods. Explain why ALNS was chosen over alternatives.
There is no sensitivity analysis to assess how changes in temperature or other variables impact the model’s outputs. Include a section to explore how robust the results are to variations in these parameters.
The discussion mentions potential benefits but lacks depth. Add more practical insights about how this approach can be implemented in real-world hazardous material transportation systems.
While the manuscript is understandable, some sentences are awkward. A professional language edit is recommended to ensure clarity and fluency.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.