Resource Scheduling Optimization of Fresh Food Delivery Porters Considering Ambient Temperature Variations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major Revision

The manuscript entitled "Resource Scheduling Optimization of Fresh Food Delivery Porters Considering Ambient Temperature Variations" reported the characteristics of fresh product orders and the weather conditions during delivery, detailing the delivery dynamics in the face of temperature changes. The research is interesting and novel, before possible acceptance by the journal, some items should be carefully revised.

1- Authors must ensure that the quality of English is improved (i.e., make all efforts to rectify any grammatical mistakes, typos, double spaces, missing spaces, subscripts, superscripts etc.). Minor editing of English language required. 

2- The abstract and conclusion should be supported with some technical results.

3- The introduction should be refined to address the novelty of the present work to the related reported ones.

4- The results didn't provide the correlation between outputs and the input features. There is no interpretation of these results or their positive or negative impact.

5- Based on the results, more deep discussion should be done such as SHAP values diagram.

6- How about the effect of the other weather conditions during delivery such as humidity, ventilation along with the delivery time?

Minor editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This research focuses on the characteristics of fresh product orders and the weather conditions during delivery, detailing the delivery dynamics in the face of temperature changes.

2. The topic is quite original and relevant in this area. However, this does not eliminate the main gaps in this area.

3. A mathematical model has been introduced to optimize the planning of home delivery of fresh food, focusing on reducing spoilage, and explores viable solution algorithms. The effectiveness of this decision-making model and its algorithms is demonstrated by specific examples.

4. The article needs improvement:

How the adaptation and verification of the adequacy of the developed mathematical model were carried out.

How the experiments were planned.

5. Discussion of the results presented in the form of tables requires scientific refinement.

6. Bibliographic references are appropriate.

7. Figure 2 requires additional explanations.

The work has theoretical and practical significance.

In general, the article can be accepted for publication after revision.

1. This research focuses on the characteristics of fresh product orders and the weather conditions during delivery, detailing the delivery dynamics in the face of temperature changes.

2. The topic is quite original and relevant in this area. However, this does not eliminate the main gaps in this area.

3. A mathematical model has been introduced to optimize the planning of home delivery of fresh food, focusing on reducing spoilage, and explores viable solution algorithms. The effectiveness of this decision-making model and its algorithms is demonstrated by specific examples.

4. The article needs improvement:

How the adaptation and verification of the adequacy of the developed mathematical model were carried out.

How the experiments were planned.

5. Discussion of the results presented in the form of tables requires scientific refinement.

6. Bibliographic references are appropriate.

7. Figure 2 requires additional explanations.

The work has theoretical and practical significance.

In general, the article can be accepted for publication after revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is very interesting and the topic is increasingly current.

Despite everything, however, the paper presents some gaps.

-The abstract gives an overview of the entire work and as such must present every aspect of the work in a few words. This abstract lacks the methodology used in the work, an important aspect that cannot be omitted and which explains how the authors obtained the results.

-When citing an author you must insert the reference immediately afterwards, see lines (43,46,48,49,63 etc) which references must be cited.

-Lines 79-80, there is a lot of literature on the topic but there is not a citation.

-Is paragraph 2 a methodological part? could it reflect the authors' methodological approach? it is unclear how the second part of the paper is structured. Organize better by explaining the important parts that structure the paper (methods, results, etc.)

-Figure 1 lacks the source, is it an elaboration by the authors? If you enter own processing or the authors.

-Paragraph 3 is about results? fix from MDPI template. The structure of the paper and the presentation of the results are not well understood as is the methodology.

-Complete the parts requested by MDPI after the conclusions; lack of informed consent, attribution of paper parts, etc.

-Last aspect linked to the bibliography. It must absolutely be integrated as there is much recent and in-depth literature on the topic covered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1）Weather conditions such as temperature have an significant impact on the home delivery scheduling of fresh products, and it is of great value to strengthen the research of this manuscript on the impact and related distribution strategies. 

2）How are the values of those parameters in table 6 and weights (0.4,0.4,0.2) in L508 determined? Please explain as appropriate.

3）The manuscript focus on the study and introduction of the method, if possible, please combine a specific example to show the quantitative impact of temperature and the reliability of the method proposed in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer: Accepted

Authors have been revised and corrected reviewer's comments. I suggestion this manuscript can be accepted for publication in your journal in this status.

Reviewer 3 Report

I was able to ascertain that the authors improved the work and integrated the work with the suggestions from the reviewer. The manuscript has been completely revised as I could see from the revised version. The aspects related to the gaps that I highlighted in the first round have been filled.