System dynamics model for an agile pharmaceutical supply chain during COVID‑19 pandemic in Iran

Mohammad Hamzehlou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290789

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 9, 2023
14 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Saad Ahmed Javed, Editor PONE-D-23-03622System Dynamics Model for an Agile Pharmaceutical Supply Chain During COVID‑19 Pandemic in IranPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hamzehlou, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 28 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, Saad Ahmed Javed, Ph.D 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. Additional Editor Comments: 1. If possible, code should be provided to verify the results. One good way is to upload on GitHub or any other open access platform and then posting link in the paper for the readers. 2. A general graphical flowchart of the proposed approach should be presented and explained. 3. Comparative analysis is needed. 4. The complete specifications of the software and hardware systems used must be described. 5. A Table should be added where some studies should be reviewed related to your topic. Last row would be ‘The current study’ and show your significance against them. 6. The introduction must be improved. Experimental evaluation must be improved. Some improvements are needed in the description of the method. 7. It is important to clearly explain what is new and what is not in the proposed solution. If some parts are identical, they should be appropriately cited and differences should be highlighted. [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: The study indicates a good research for the chosen topic and field. The article entitled System Dynamics Model for an Agile Pharmaceutical Supply Chain During COVID‑19 Pandemic in Iran (Manuscript Number PONE-D-23-03622) offers a broad theory and application according to academic requirements. The summary and introduction show a good theoretical approach. The research method and statistics are well studied. The results, discussions and conclusions show a good critical approach to the current research. The references indicate a good deepening of the studied field. Reviewer #2: This paper is well organized, focusing on the construction of SD model for Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Through the SD model, the authors present some management insights, such as the strategies for agile SC. My concerns are listed as follows. � The term should be consisted, such as Pharmaceutical Supply Chain (PSC) and Healthcare Supply Chain (HSC) � How to analyze the interaction effect of different policies on the system's behavior � How to better determine the amount of capital and workforce required for ongoing projects ****** 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: Yes: Professor Cristian Delcea PhD 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.0290789.r001
Revision 1
25 Jul 2023 Author Response Dear Prof. Saad Ahmed Javed, Please accept our sincere thanks for the valuable comments, which caused a proper revision in the paper, made it much more flowed, and brought a richer manuscript. We hope it is now up to your satisfaction and the high standards of PLOS ONE Journal. The authors’ answers are colored in blue, while quoted texts from the manuscript are colored in purple. The reviewers’ questions and comments remained in black. The changes made to the manuscript are identifiable using the track changes mode in MS Word. The highlighted file just consists of major additions and omissions. For minor changes such as fixing punctuation, spelling, typing errors, using better words, suggesting better alternatives for meaningless sections, fixing grammar bugs, and so on, please refer to the track changed file, which contains almost all the changes made to the original submitted manuscript. In the highlighted file, the additions are marked in yellow. Best regards, Mohammad Hamzehlou Additional Editor Comments: Thank you very much for the constructive comments, which undoubtedly resulted in an improved manuscript. Also, we appreciate your overall positive view of this research while considering a good potential for it. As a result of this revision, the original manuscript has undergone changes, the most important of which are detailed here. 1. If possible, code should be provided to verify the results. One good way is to upload on GitHub or any other open access platform and then posting link in the paper for the readers. Response: We appreciate this valuable comment. We can't upload our equations on GitHub or any other open-access platform, but we can send the source codes of VENSIM software for more information and verification of results. 2. A general graphical flowchart of the proposed approach should be presented and explained. Response: Thank you so much for this useful hint. We provided the graphical flowchart. 3. Comparative analysis is needed. Response: We really appreciate this valuable and constructive comment. As you correctly mentioned, when it comes to expressing the results and discussing them, they should be compared with the previous ones mentioned in similar studies. In the original version of the manuscript, we tried to do so by comparing the results of this study with those of other studies conducted in this context, but because of being we should say in the system dynamics model is not applicable. Because when we create a model for a problem, we create a new and unique model. Also, we can compare the concept of each model only with the same model, not with different approaches such as DEMATEL or etc. Although methods such as DEMATEL are cause and effect based. 4. The complete specifications of the software and hardware systems used must be described. Response: Thank you so much for your close attention to the text of the manuscript from beginning to end and for raising this useful comment. Also, we appreciate your fair judgment to mention that in the original version of the highlights, the objectives of the study were mentioned properly. To create the equations, researchers, based on previously existing data on the subject under study and using scientific methods, will extract the equations and use them in the relevant software (in this study, VENSIM). It should be noted that the use of these types of equations will allow researchers to use the required criteria in the model, if necessary. In other words, researchers are not limited just to predefined criteria. Accordingly, we added the VENSIM Software code for reader information and use. 5. The introduction must be improved. Experimental evaluation must be improved. Some improvements are needed in the description of the method. Response: Thank you so much for this useful hint. We rewrote this section. Also, in some part of this section added more details. 6. It is important to clearly explain what is new and what is not in the proposed solution. If some parts are identical, they should be appropriately cited, and differences should be highlighted. Response: Thank you so much for your close attention to every single part of the manuscript and also for raising this useful comment. These added sentences and other minor changes made are traceable in the highlighted version of the manuscript too. � Investigating the effect of information transparency, PSC resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic � Designing and implement 4 policies affecting PSC agility based on financial capital, access rate. � Investigating the effect of quadruple policies with three defined scenarios to obtain the PSC agility in the COVID-19 pandemic. � Considering the sanctions conditions of PSC companies in Iran and its impact on agility 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: The study indicates good research for the chosen topic and field. The article entitled System Dynamics Model for an Agile Pharmaceutical Supply Chain During COVID 19 Pandemic in Iran (Manuscript Number PONE-D-23-03622) offers a broad theory and application according to academic requirements. The summary and introduction show a good theoretical approach. The research method and statistics are well studied. The results, discussions and conclusions show a good critical approach to the current research. The references indicate a good deepening of the studied field. Response: Thank you very much for the constructive comments, which undoubtedly resulted in an improved manuscript. Also, we appreciate your overall positive view of this research while considering a good potential for it. As a result of this revision, the original manuscript has undergone changes, the most important of which are detailed here. We really appreciate the proposed hint. It is really nice of you to pay a close attention to every detail in the text. Reviewer #2: This paper is well organized, focusing on the construction of SD model for Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Through the SD model, the authors present some management insights, such as the strategies for agile SC. My concerns are listed as follows. • The term should be consisted, such as Pharmaceutical Supply Chain (PSC) and Healthcare Supply Chain (HSC) Response: Thank you for proposing this comment. You are absolutely right. But in this research, we only examine the part of the pharmaceutical supply chain, that is, we examine how the members of the supply chain communicate for better efficiency and agility systems. Accordingly, the health supply chain is hidden in the above case. • How to analyze the interaction effect of different policies on the system's behavior Response: Thank you so much for raising this constructive comment, which has made the revised manuscript more readable. We added more details about it. Action: At scenario number one: Agility decreases from 30% to 27%; Cash reserves increase by 37%; Innovative payment methods increase by 55% and various sources, various export sources/options, increase by 40%. In scenario two: Agility decreases from 30% to 24%; Cash reserves increase by 23.5%; Innovative payment methods increase by 23%, and various sources, various export sources/options, increase by 40%. In scenario three: Agility decreases from 30% to 21%; Cash reserves increase by 10%; Innovative payment methods increase by 55% and various sources, various export sources/options, increase by 38%. It is observed that if no new policy is created in the organization's program, agility will be reduced during five years, so to maintain SC agility, the mentioned policies have been implemented and simulated. The results in Fig. 13 show what happens if any of these scenarios occur if these policies are implemented. Table 2 shows the results of the implementation of these policies. According to the results of the implementation of these policies at the time of occurrence of each scenario, it has been shown that implementing policies at the same time increase cooperation and intra-group partnerships, investment, HCD and accelerates the completion of ongoing projects based on organizational priorities. For purpose of the study, the agility of the SC will be maintained for 5 years, due to the stated benefits (increased inflation and the discovery of COVID-19), and even increased slightly. • How to better determine the amount of capital and workforce required for ongoing projects. Response: We really appreciate this valuable and constructive comment. The system dynamics model determined the amount of output based on internal equations. Also, the equations work based on historical data we collected from case studies. In this study, the better amount of each critical variable of each scenario -policies are in Table 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Comments to the Author.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290789.r002
16 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Saad Ahmed Javed, Editor System Dynamics Model for an Agile Pharmaceutical Supply Chain During COVID‑19 Pandemic in Iran PONE-D-23-03622R1 Dear Dr. Hamzehlou, 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, Saad Ahmed Javed, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript is acceptable. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290789.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Saad Ahmed Javed, Editor PONE-D-23-03622R1 System Dynamics Model for an Agile Pharmaceutical Supply Chain During COVID‑19 Pandemic in Iran Dear Dr. Hamzehlou: 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. Saad Ahmed Javed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290789.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 .