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.
Both reviewers have sent positive recommendations for the publication of this manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I accept the explanation for this work’s importance. Moreover, additional analyses and the detail of a single illustrative case brighten up this article. I recommend it for publication on Peer J.
The author has refocused the paper as instructed. The paper is now better represented by its title, has scaled down its previous scope, and presents a very useful assembly of code and a blue print of problems the combination of which constitutes a novelty in logistics.
The author made an effort to marshal an experiment that could be analyzed sequentially across the different tools in the suite. This is much better for readability and, certainly for future comparisons as a system (not so much for the particular methods on each phase).
The combination of code to attack a wide variety of problems in logistics makes of this work a novel contribution in its whole.
Please respond to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The author was coding the key sub-routines for solving Logistic Problems. That is nice. But for a research paper that wants to be published, exploiting existing, unimproved algorithms would be judged as less innovation. Further, the analysis of different strategies is also weak. For example, the author depicted both the Continuous Review Model and the Periodic Review Model for inventory management. Still, one cannot determine which model is more suitable for a specific instance in terms of the author’s description.
A large practical logistics management system involves the integration of many software components. That is a very complex problem belonging to the research category of software engineering. Still, I did not see the discussion to handle such issues.
In short, I do not think the article is appropriate for publication as a research paper unless the author can show adequate innovation. But the codes in the paper are good material for learning. If the author can share these codes (such as creating a project in GitHub), that would be nice not only for learners but also for broadening the exposure of the author’s work.
The author is commended on assembling a series of problems and their solutions into a single framework. The technical aspects of each part are succinctly explained, however, it is necessary to give a paragraph at the end of each section to explain where the reader can find the most up-to-date related material.
Tables, figures showing code, and graphs must be improved for readability, as they are hard to read in small font-size.
In this reviewer´s opinion, the title should be: A coded suite of models to explore relevant problems in logistics. This would reflect the current orientation of the article and be transparent about its objective.
It is understood that bringing together several problems/solutions into a single framework is an important effort. The illustrative cases are important, however, it would help the users to have a single case involving all parts of the framework. This will help to emphasize what can and cannot be done with it.
The article is geared towards people who are very familiar with logistics, mathematical programming, and computer coding. To this public, the proposed framework has the potential to be very useful. I believe there is no methodological novelty to each problem, although the framework is a useful contribution.
This work seems to be potentially very useful for the practitioners in logistics. The author is commended on undertaking this unification effort.
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.