Hybrid Tabu-Grey wolf optimizer algorithm for enhancing fresh cold-chain logistics distribution

Hao Zhang; Jianing Yan; Liling Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306166

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 31, 2024
1 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Mazyar Ghadiri Nejad, Editor PONE-D-24-03785Hybrid Tabu-Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm for Enhancing Fresh Cold-Chain Logistics DistributionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 May 16 2024 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, Mazyar Ghadiri Nejad, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 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: No 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: This paper presents a novel experiment approach to optimize cold chain logistics distribution for fresh products, utilizing a hybrid Tabu-Grey wolf optimizer (TGWO) algorithm. The proposed hybrid approach combines Tabu search (TS) and Grey wolf optimizer (GWO), employing TS for exploration and GWO for exploitation. The effectiveness of the TGWO algorithm is demonstrated through experiments and case studies. Further, they shown that the practical implication lies in the implementation of TGWO to bolster distribution efficiency, cost reduction, and product quality maintenance throughout the logistics process, offering valuable insights for operational and strategic improvements by decision-makers. Thus, this manuscript is recommended for publication in this Journal. However, the following minor comments may improve the manuscript. 1. The abstract parts need improvement to clarify the main topic of this paper. 2. Please revise the whole paper in terms of punctuation, especially for the equations. Some commas and full stops are missing. 3. Please cite some recent relevant papers to improve the introduction part. 4. The bibliography is sloppy. All references from start to the end should be rearranged according to the journal style. 5. An improvement should be done in the figures. 6. Read the whole manuscript and try to remove the passive voice misuse and typo mistakes in some spots. Reviewer #2: The authors, in this paper, proposed a hybrid approach that combines Tabu search (TS) and Grey wolf optimizer (GWO), employing TS for exploration and GWO for exploitation. The paper is well organized but it requires some correction. 1. The abstract is too short and does not describe the major theme of the research. Please rearrange it. 2. The citations in the introduction section like [14-16], [17-19], [20, 21], and [22, 23] may not provide good impression to the readers. 3. What is new in the model equations 1 to 3. 4. The authors claimed that the proposed hybrid TGWO offers a practical solution for optimizing the cold chain logistics distribution of fresh products. Please provide justification. 5. Corelate your work with the earlier ones and validate your results even in limiting cases. ****** 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: Yes: Sohail Ahmad ******** [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.0306166.r001
Revision 1
24 May 2024 Author Response Dear editors and reviewers: First, we thank both the reviewers and editors for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript, “Hybrid Tabu-Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm for Enhancing Fresh Cold-Chain Logistics Distribution” (No.: PONE-D-24-03785). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and provided important guiding significance for our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. To make the changes easily viewable for you, in the revised paper, we marked some revisions in red color. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows: Replies to Reviewer #1 1. The abstract parts need improvement to clarify the main topic of this paper. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the need for improvement in the abstract section to better elucidate the main topic of our paper. In the revised version, we ensure that the abstract concisely and accurately summarizes the key aspects of our study, providing readers with a clearer understanding of our research focus and findings. 2. Please revise the whole paper in terms of punctuation, especially for the equations. Some commas and full stops are missing. Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have meticulously revised the entire paper, focusing on punctuation, particularly within the equations. We have ensured the inclusion of missing commas and full stops to enhance the clarity and readability of the manuscript. Additionally, we have employed professional proofreading services to refine the punctuation throughout the document, thereby improving its overall quality. 3. Please cite some recent relevant papers to improve the introduction part. Response: In the revised version, we have enriched the introduction section by incorporating citations from recent and pertinent literature. These additional references provide a more comprehensive context for our study, enhancing the relevance and depth of the introduction. We believe that these revisions strengthen the scholarly contribution of our manuscript. 4. The bibliography is sloppy. All references from start to the end should be rearranged according to the journal style. Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We acknowledge the need to ensure the accuracy and consistency of our bibliography. In the revised manuscript, we rearranged all references according to the journal's prescribed style guidelines, ensuring uniformity and adherence to the required formatting standards. This will result in a more polished and professional presentation of our cited sources throughout the document. 5. An improvement should be done in the figures. 6. Read the whole manuscript and try to remove the passive voice misuse and typo mistakes in some spots. Response: 5. Thank you for your feedback regarding the figures. We try to enhance the clarity and quality of the figures in the revised manuscript, ensuring they effectively convey the intended information and adhere to the journal's standards. 6. In the revised version, we thoroughly scrutinize the entire document to rectify any instances of passive voice misuse and address typographical errors, thereby enhancing the readability and precision of our manuscript. Replies to Reviewer #2 1.The abstract is too short and does not describe the major theme of the research. Please rearrange it. Response: In the revised version, we will expand the abstract to provide a more comprehensive overview of our study, ensuring that it effectively communicates the key objectives, methodology, and results to the readers. We will carefully rearrange the content to ensure clarity and coherence, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the abstract. 2. The citations in the introduction section like [14-16], [17-19], [20, 21], and [22, 23] may not provide good impression to the readers. Response: Thank you for your observation. We recognize the importance of providing clear and concise citations in the introduction section to enhance readability and maintain a positive impression on the readers. In the revised manuscript, we ensure that each citation is presented with specificity, avoiding broad ranges. Instead, we will cite individual references where appropriate, providing readers with a more precise understanding of the relevant literature. 3.What is new in the model equations 1 to 3. Response: Thank you for your inquiry. In equations 1 to 3, we have retained the conventional formulations for fixed costs and transportation costs, consistent with prior literature. However, we have introduced novel considerations in the computation of cargo damage costs, addressing both cargo loss during transportation and unloading scenarios. This enhancement involves incorporating the associated costs incurred due to cargo loss during transportation and unloading processes, thus enriching the model's realism and applicability in assessing total logistics expenses accurately. 4.The authors claimed that the proposed hybrid TGWO offers a practical solution for optimizing the cold chain logistics distribution of fresh products. Please provide justification. 5. Corelate your work with the earlier ones and validate your results even in limiting cases. Response: Thank you for your inquiry. In the results section, we have substantiated our claim regarding the practical utility of the proposed hybrid TGWO method for optimizing cold chain logistics distribution of fresh products. Firstly, we have benchmarked our method against established benchmark functions widely used in optimization studies, demonstrating its capability to converge towards optimal solutions efficiently.Furthermore, to validate its effectiveness in practical scenarios, we have conducted a comprehensive case study wherein we compared the performance of our hybrid TGWO with other state-of-the-art swarm intelligence algorithms. Through rigorous experimentation and comparative analysis, our findings illustrate the superior performance and robustness of the proposed method in optimizing cold chain logistics distribution, thereby justifying its practical applicability and efficacy.We believe that these results provide compelling justification for our assertion regarding the practical utility of the hybrid TGWO approach in addressing the complexities of cold chain logistics optimization for perishable goods. Conclusion Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise the above manuscript, and we apologize for the mistakes in our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript to provide our explanations according to the reviewers' comments. We hope you are satisfied with the revised version. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding. We look forward to hearing from you soon. With best regards, Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Detailed Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306166.r002
13 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Mazyar Ghadiri Nejad, Editor Hybrid Tabu-Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm for Enhancing Fresh Cold-Chain Logistics Distribution PONE-D-24-03785R1 Dear Dr. Liling Wang, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Mazyar Ghadiri Nejad, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: The manuscript has been revised significantly according to the comments that is why I accept it. All the comments are well addressed. Reviewer #3: The paper "Hybrid Tabu-Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm for Enhancing Fresh Cold-Chain Logistics Distribution "can be accepted in this form. ****** 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 #2: Yes: Sohail Ahmad Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306166.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mazyar Ghadiri Nejad, Editor PONE-D-24-03785R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mazyar Ghadiri Nejad Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306166.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 .