Research on emergency material demand based on urgency and satisfaction under public health emergencies

Zhichao Ma; Jie Zhang; Shaochan Gao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282796

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 18, 2022
21 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Mintodê Nicodème Atchadé, Editor PONE-D-22-31654Emergency supplies demand research under the background of COVID-19PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jie Zhang, 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. ==============================A major revision is recommend incorporating a point-to-point authors reply.============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mintode Nicodeme Atchade Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)” 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 6 and 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: 1-I have read the paper very carefully but I found some points that should be done The novelty should be written in a clear way. 2-The main contribution of the paper is not clear should be enhanced in a single paragraph. 3- The paper is interesting and can be enhanced and published after making the upcoming comments. 4-The idea of the paper is good and has merits. 5) Even though the authors have a very technically sound paper, it still lacking in depth of communication. Except its meant for select audience, the paper would benefit from simplification and rewording. As a statistician I am able to digest a lot of what is being done however, if your desire is to see the application of the work widely then more effort needs to come in to help audience understand this highly technically sound paper. Again authors also need to check for grammatical errors in the paper. 6- The "Abstract" of the paper. I consider that the authors should structure the "Abstract" as to cover the most important points of interest: the authors should have positioned the manuscript's topic in a broad context therefore covering appropriately the topic's background; the authors should have presented succinctly the methods they have employed in order to attain the purpose of their study; 7-The introduction is too long. 8-The abstract and conclusion are too long. 9-The numbers of equations is not correct. I can accept the paper after making these comments The changes made based on the comments should be written in color. After carrying out these changes, I recommend that the paper can be published. Reviewer #2: There are a lot of typos that need to be corrected. The introduction must be reorganized as it is very poor. The novelty of the article should be justified. Please define acronyms the first time they appear in the text. The English writing needs to improve! I have corrected only two pages in the pdf attached file. Check the attached pdf file for the "English corrections," Please do it for the rest of the pages. I could not check the rest pages. It has several flaws! You should try to present all the achievements in a clear presentation!!! ****** 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 ******** [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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282796.r001
Revision 1
26 Jan 2023 Author Response Response to the academic editor We really appreciate your carefulness and conscientiousness. Your suggestions are really valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to your suggestions, we have made the following revisions to this manuscript. (Editors comment 1): 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf (Our response): Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We have altered the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the journal. (Editors comment 2): We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. (Our response): Thanks for your suggestion. We do invite a friend of ours to help polish our article. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable to you. The details of my friend are as follows. Name: Shaochan Gao1, #a 1 School of Management Engineering and business, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan, Hebei, China #a Current Address: Hebei University of Engineering, Congtai District, Handan, Hebei, China (Editors comment 3): We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 6 and 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. (Our response): Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We delete Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 and Table 7 belong to the process. Their removal does not affect the overall structure and results of the article. Response to Reviewer 1 According to the associate reviewers’ comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. (Comment 1): I have read the paper very carefully but I found some points that should be done. The novelty should be written in a clear way. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading and recognition of our manuscript. We changed some points in the structure of the article and marked them in yellow. As in the seventh paragraph of the Introduction. We have revised the Innovation Point, and the Innovation Point into a separate paragraph. The details are in paragraph 6 of the Introduction. We marked it in green. (Comment 2): The main contribution of the paper is not clear and should be enhanced in a single paragraph. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading. We revised the main contribution of the article. The specific content in section 5, Conclusion, paragraph 1. The details are highlighted in purple. (Comment 3): The paper is interesting and can be enhanced and published after making the upcoming comments. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading and recognition of our manuscript. Your valuable comments have a great effect on improving the quality of our manuscript. (Comment 4): The idea of the paper is good and has merits. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading and recognition of our manuscript. (Comment 5): Even though the authors have a very technically sound paper, it still lacking in depth of communication. Except its meant for select audience, the paper would benefit from simplification and rewording. As a statistician I am able to digest a lot of what is being done however, if your desire is to see the application of the work widely then more effort needs to come in to help audience understand this highly technically sound paper. Again authors also need to check for grammatical errors in the paper. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading and recognition of our manuscript. In order to make the article more in-depth, this article has made the following changes(Table 1). In order to expand the scope of the article, this article will be ‘In the context of Covid-19’ to ‘In the context of emergency public events’. In order to make the audience understand this paper better, we transform the research of the urgency of the demand for emergency materials into the matching problem of supply and demand based on the urgency and satisfaction of the demand for emergency materials. We are sorry for the grammatical mistakes in the paper. We do invite a friend of ours to help polish our article. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable to you. Table 1. Article in-depth revision contrast Before modification The Grey Correlation-TOPSIS Model: (1) Establish an index system; (2) Defuzzification of fuzzy indicators; (3) Weights corresponding to indicators; (4) Prioritize the urgency of your needs. (1 supply point and 5 demand points) After modification Decision model result: (1) Establish the supply and demand indicators system; (2) The index weight is calculated by the entropy weight method; (3) Build a profit and loss matrix; (4) Construct the perceived utility matrix; (5) Establish the double objective optimization model; (6) On the basis of distinguishing the degree of urgency of demand, it maximizes the degree of satisfaction of both the supplier and the demander. Then, 5 supply points and 5 demand points are matched to get the optimal matching scheme. (Comment 6): The "Abstract" of the paper. I consider that the authors should structure the "Abstract" as to cover the most important points of interest: the authors should have positioned the manuscript's topic in a broad context therefore covering appropriately the topic's background; the authors should have presented succinctly the methods they have employed in order to attain the purpose of their study; (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. For the abstract, we changed the covid-19 context to the broader context of public health emergencies. We have also optimized and abbreviated the methods section of the Abstract. The details are highlighted in blue. (Comment 7): The introduction is too long. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. We have revised the introduction and marked it in different colors. (Comment 8): The abstract and conclusion are too long. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. We have revised the abstract and conclusion to shorten the length of the manuscript while optimizing the content. (Comment 9): The numbers of equations is not correct. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. I apologize for our mistake. We have simplified the model and modified the formula number without changing the structure of the article. Change numbers are highlighted in yellow. (Comment 10): I can accept the paper after making these comments. The changes made based on the comments should be written in color. After carrying out these changes, I recommend that the paper can be published. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading and recognition of our manuscript. We have carefully revised each of your comments. We write the parts that have been changed in color. Each of your valuable comments has greatly improved the quality of our articles. Response to Reviewer 2 We really appreciate your carefulness and conscientiousness. Your suggestions are really valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to your suggestions, we have made the following revisions to this manuscript. (Comment 1): There are a lot of typos that need to be corrected. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. I'm sorry for our spelling mistake. We have invited our friends to help us correct the spelling mistakes in the manuscript. (Comment 2): The introduction must be reorganized as it is very poor. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. We have rewritten the Introduction and color-coded it. I hope that the revised introduction can gain your approval. (Comment 3): The novelty of the article should be justified. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. We have rewritten the innovation points of the article and highlighted them in green. The details are in paragraph 6 of the Introduction. (Comment 4): Please define acronyms the first time they appear in the text. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. We have defined the acronyms that appear for the first time in our manuscript and highlighted them in red. (Comment 5): The English writing needs to improve! I have corrected only two pages in the pdf attached file. Check the attached pdf file for the "English corrections," Please do it for the rest of the pages. I could not check the rest pages. (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript. I'm sorry for our English writing ability. We checked the English attachments in time and will ask our friends to Polish our articles. I hope the revised article can get your approval. (Comment 6): It has several flaws! You should try to present all the achievements in a clear presentation!!! (Our response): Thank you very much for your careful reading. We revised the main contribution of the article. The specific content in section 5, Conclusion, paragraph 1. The details are highlighted in purple. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282796.r002
23 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Lu Peng, Editor Research on emergency material demand based on urgency and satisfaction under public health emergencies PONE-D-22-31654R1 Dear Dr. Zhang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Lu Peng Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: All comments have been done i suggest accepting the paper All comments have been done i suggest accepting the paper Reviewer #2: The authors made a The study of emergency logistics has also attracted scholars’ attention. Therefore, matching emergency materials’ supply and demand quickly, which meets urgency and satisfaction, is the purpose of this paper. This paper used the Metabolism Grey Model (1,1) (GM (1,1)) and the material demand prediction model to predict the number of infections and material demand. Besides, we established a double objective optimization model by constructing a profit and loss matrix and a comprehensive utility perception matrix. The results show that the method is helpful in matching the optimal supply and demand decision quickly on the basis of meeting urgency and satisfaction. The method is helpful in improving the fairness of emergency material distribution, which could better protect people's livelihoods. I accept the paper ****** 7. 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282796.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Lu Peng, Editor PONE-D-22-31654R1 Research on emergency material demand based on urgency and satisfaction under public health emergencies Dear Dr. Zhang: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Lu Peng Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282796.r004

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 .