Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 28, 2019
Decision Letter - Baogui Xin, Editor

PONE-D-19-27282

Effects of trust-based decision making in disrupted supply chains

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Doroudi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I recommend that it should be revised taking into account the changes requested by the reviewers. Since the requested changes include valuable comments, I would like to give you a chance to improve your manuscript.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 25 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Baogui Xin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company:  SRI International.

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b)  Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: To study a pharmaceutical supply chain with boundedly rational artificial decision makers capable of reasoning about the motivations and behaviors of others, authors use multi-agent simulations where each agent represents a key decision maker in a pharmaceutical supply chain. Their experiments reveal several counter-intuitive results showing how small, local disruptions can have cascading global consequences that persist over time. Authors also demonstrate how timing and scale of disruptions interacts with buyer’s sensitivity to trustworthiness.

It is good writing paper and is suitable for publications in PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is interesting and technically sound.

However, the English usage of the submitted paper need to be further polished, a careful reading of a native English speaker is necessary.

Reviewer #3: This paper is more interesting and now is presented in a good format. Still, it could be better to consider more scenarios for obtaining more comprehensive insights. If my concern is considered,this paper can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #4: This paper reports on a multi-agent system for analyzing (combined) trust-based decisions and disruption impact on supply chain performance, cost for instance. The paper is well written and the explanation of the model is quite clear. The analysis of the example is also quite sound.

My only remark relates to the positioning of this research with regard to existing literature, I would suggest breaking down the introduction into two parts: 1) introduction and 2) state of the art and positioning. A quick search in two data bases pointed the following titles of published research works, which can benefit the improvement of the state of the art:

- A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain

- An adaptive multi-agent system for cost collaborative management in supply chains

- Analysis of the performance of supply chains configurations using multi-agent systems

- Customer order fulfilment in mass customization context - An agent-based approach

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

We are extremely grateful to all reviewers for their comments and suggestions that helped improving the overall clarity of the paper. We have revised the entire manuscript in order to address all those comments and globally improve the readability and clarity of the presentation and discussions. Below we provide detailed replies to the reviewers’ comments and explain how the different suggestions were addressed and incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1

We would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments.

Reviewer #2

We would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments. The paper has been thoroughly proofread.

Reviewer #3

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments.

Regarding the comment about more scenarios to consider, we added a new scenario with a different disruption profile starting on page 12 of the manuscript. In this new scenario we examine how the overall supply chain cost trajectory changes with changes in disruption parameters. This resulted in uncovering new insights about nonlinear relationship between supply chain cost with the length of disruption, when the total size of the disruption is held constant.

We also ran extra robustness simulations for scenarios 4 and 5. In these robustness simulations we consider stochastic patient demand and examine how using trustworthiness by one of the healthcenters versus not using trustworthiness by any of the healthcenters affects supply chain agents’ cost.

Reviewer #4

We would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments.

Following the suggestion to add a separate section for the literature review, we added a “State of the art” section starting on page 3 of the manuscript. In this section we positioned our research within the multiagent system literature. In particular, we highlighted papers that, similarly to our own, consider supplier-buyer interaction in a supply chain. The corresponding additional references are as follows:

• Cachon GP, Lariviere MA. Capacity choice and allocation: Strategic behavior and supply chain performance. Management science. 1999 Aug; 45(8):1091-108.

• Durango-Cohen EJ, Li CH. Modeling supplier capacity allocation decisions. International Journal of Production Economics. 2017 Feb 1; 184:256-72.

• Chen CM, Thomas DJ. Inventory Allocation in the Presence of Service-Level Agreements. Production and Operations Management. 2018 Mar; 27(3):553-77.

• Kawtummachai R, Van Hop N. Order allocation in a multiple-supplier environment. International Journal of Production Economics. 2005 Jan 8; 93:231-8.

• Wooldridge M, Jennings NR. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The knowledge engineering review. 1995 Jun; 10(2):115-52.

• Swaminathan JM, Smith SF, Sadeh NM. Modeling supply chain dynamics: A multiagent approach. Decision sciences. 1998 Jul; 29(3):607-32.

• Moyaux T, Chaib-Draa B, D'Amours S. Supply chain management and multiagent systems: an overview. Multiagent based supply chain management 2006 (pp. 1-27). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

• Lee JH, Kim CO. Multi-agent systems applications in manufacturing systems and supply chain management: a review paper. International Journal of Production Research. 2008 Jan 1; 46(1):233-65.

• Kimbrough SO, Wu DJ, Zhong F. Computers play the beer game: can artificial agents manage supply chains? Decision support systems. 2002 Jul 1; 33(3):323-33.

• Ghadimi P, Toosi FG, Heavey C. A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research. 2018 Aug 16; 269(1):286-301.

• Fu J, Fu Y. An adaptive multi-agent system for cost collaborative management in supply chains. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence. 2015 Sep 1; 44:91-100.

• Giannakis M, Louis M. A multi-agent based framework for supply chain risk management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 2011 Mar 1; 17(1):23-31.

We would also like to thank the reviewer for the suggested papers. We carefully read them and decided to add in the “State of the art” section, on page 4 of the manuscript, the ones that were most closely related to our research, namely:

• Ghadimi P, Toosi FG, Heavey C. A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research. 2018 Aug 16; 269(1):286-301.

• Fu J, Fu Y. An adaptive multi-agent system for cost collaborative management in supply chains. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence. 2015 Sep 1;4 4:91-100.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Baogui Xin, Editor

Effects of trust-based decision making in disrupted supply chains

PONE-D-19-27282R1

Dear Dr. Doroudi,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Baogui Xin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Baogui Xin, Editor

PONE-D-19-27282R1

Effects of trust-based decision making in disrupted supply chains

Dear Dr. Doroudi:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Baogui Xin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .