Coordinating principal–agent and incentive strategy of cold chain logistics service in fresh food supply chain

Ming Zeng; Yuxiang Wu; Xiaoling Xing; Wenjing Tang; Huyang Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306976

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 14, 2023
30 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - João Zambujal-Oliveira, Editor PONE-D-23-32982Coordinating principal-agent and incentive strategy of cold chain logistics service in fresh food supply chainPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wu, 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. There are relevant issues that should be addressed. First, the paper's readability should be improved. Second, there are methodological aspects that need more work. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 15 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, João Zambujal-Oliveira 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. 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 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. 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 [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: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: In this reviewed paper, the authors adopt coordination theory to research the delegation, coordination, and incentive strategies between fresh food producers, distributors, and cold chain logistics service providers. In order to deal with the complex problem, the basic models and a collaborative delegation agency model are established by the authors. Moreover, the authors discussed the motivational effect under different information conditions and collaborative cooperation strategies. I support its publication after considering the following comments. 1) For the studied problem, are there any other existing studies via coordination theory? If yes, please include them in your literature review. If possible, it is better to compare the performance of the suggested method and theirs. 2) It is missing an in-depth discussion considering this study’s findings and how they advance the literature. 3) Please highlight the contribution of this study, with reference to practice and contribution to the literature. 4) All figures should be improved for better reading. 5) English writing must be well-polished. Reviewer #2: 1. The paper contains too many grammatical errors, spelling errors, punctuation errors, and formatting errors. Therefore, the authors are suggested to scan the entire text for possible English errors and rectify those accordingly. In addition, I think the writing of this paper could be improved in terms of logicality. 2. In Section 1, the authors are advised to provide answers to the research questions. 3. Why are Food Producer and Distributor both risk neutral while CCL Service Provider is risk averse? Please explain. 4. The authors actually set up the model based on the assumption in which costs except effect cost in the supply chain are standardized to 0. However, this assumption is not clearly demonstrated in Section 3, although the assumption is common in the existing literature (e.g., references [1] and [2]). Thus, the authors are advised to add the assumption and cite references [1] and [2]. 5，Please provide reasons of each proposition in detail, rather than just paraphrasing the meaning of each proposition. 6. It is recommended that the Conclusion section should not exceed four paragraphs. 7. It is recommended that the authors provide future research in Section 6. Overall, my recommendation is minor revision. References [1] "Manufacturer encroachment with a new product under network externalities." International Journal of Production Economics (2023): 108954. [2] "Optimal mechanism for project splitting with time cost and asymmetric information." International Journal of Production Economics 264 (2023): 108987. ****** 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.0306976.r001
Revision 1
12 Mar 2024 Author Response Cover Letter Date: 15 March 2024. Dear editor, Thank you and the reviewers for commenting on our manuscript (PONE-D-23-32982) entitled “Coordinating principal-agent and incentive strategy of cold chain logistics service in fresh food supply chain”. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and highlighted the modified parts with a different color. Reviewer 1 1. For the studied problem, are there any other existing studies via coordination theory? If yes, please include them in your literature review. If possible, it is better to compare the performance of the suggested method and theirs. Reply: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. Some representative studies via coordination theory have been added into the literature review of our revised manuscript. Also, the performance of the suggested method and the theirs have been compared comprehensively. For further details, please refer to the first and second paragraphs of section 2.3 Supply chain coordination and incentive strategies of the literature review. 2. It is missing an in-depth discussion considering this study’s findings and how they advance the literature. Reply: The findings of our manuscript were explained thoroughly and an in-depth discussion about how they advance the literature were conducted. Please see the third paragraph of the final section 2.3 Supply chain coordination and incentive strategies of the literature review. 3. Please highlight the contribution of this study, with reference to practice and contribution to the literature. Reply: The contributions of this study have been highlighted and clearly divided into theoretical and practical parts. The details can be found from the ninth paragraph of the introduction. 4. All figures should be improved for better reading. Reply: All figures have been modified from the aspects of clarity, color, and line pattern for better reading. All images in our submitted revisions are attached separately. 5. English writing must be well-polished. Reply: Thanks for this comment. The English expression of the full manuscript has been thoroughly checked and revised, all the changes were marked in red. Reviewer 2 1. The paper contains too many grammatical errors, spelling errors, punctuation errors, and formatting errors. Therefore, the authors are suggested to scan the entire text for possible English errors and rectify those accordingly. In addition, I think the writing of this paper could be improved in terms of logicality. Reply: Thanks a lot for the comments. The grammatical errors, spelling errors, punctuation errors, and formatting errors were carefully checked and the full text was examined in detail. Beyond, the logic of the writing was reorganized. 2. In Section 1, the authors are advised to provide answers to the research questions. Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. The answers of the three research questions were provided at the end of the Introduction Section. 3. Why are Food Producer and Distributor both risk neutral while CCL Service Provider is risk averse? Please explain. Reply: The Food Producer and Distributor both risk neutral while CCL Service Provider is risk averse is based on the second hypothesis in our manuscript, which relies on the classic HM principal-agent theory elaborated in references Bernheim&Whitnston, 1985 and Mirrlees, 1976, as well as the traditional rational person hypothesis, which assumes that the principal, i.e. fresh agricultural product producers and distributors, is risk neutral and completely rational, while the agent, i.e. cold chain logistics service provider, is completely rational and risk averse. The above literatures have been added to the revised manuscript and explained in details. Please see Assumption 2 in Section 3.1. 4. The authors actually set up the model based on the assumption in which costs except effect cost in the supply chain are standardized to 0. However, this assumption is not clearly demonstrated in Section 3, although the assumption is common in the existing literature (e.g., references [1] and [2]). Thus, the authors are advised to add the assumption and cite references [1] and [2]. Reply: The hypothesis "costs except effect cost in the supply chain are standardized to 0" has been clearly demonstrated in Section 3 and the suggested references were cited in the revised version. The details can refer to Assumption 6 in Section 3.1. 5. Please provide reasons of each proposition in detail, rather than just paraphrasing the meaning of each proposition. Reply: The detailed information on how each proposition was derived has been supplied in the manuscript, please see XXX. 6. It is recommended that the Conclusion section should not exceed four paragraphs. Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The conclusion section has been reorganized and merge into three paragraphs. Please refer to Section 6.1. 7. It is recommended that the authors provide future research in Section 6. Reply: The future scope of research has been extensively discussed in Section 6.2 in our revised manuscript. . All the contents indicated above are in the revised manuscript. In summary, we appreciate the reviewers greatly for all the comments and suggestions, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript. Yours Sincerely, Yuxiang Wu College of Management Science Chengdu University of Technology, China. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306976.r002
27 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - João Zambujal-Oliveira, Editor Coordinating principal-agent and incentive strategy of cold chain logistics service in fresh food supply chain PONE-D-23-32982R1 Dear Dr. Wu, 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, João Zambujal-Oliveira 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 #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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 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: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306976.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - João Zambujal-Oliveira, Editor PONE-D-23-32982R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wu, 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 Prof. João Zambujal-Oliveira Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306976.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 .