Implementation of Industry 4.0 Principles and Tools: Simulation and Case Study in a Manufacturing SME
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
The novelty of the study is lacking in abstract. Kindly justify the novel contribution of work. Abstract need significant improvement.
Line 10 and 11 presents brief of Grant Thornton work. Here it is suggested to discuss the authors work.
Introduction
The introduction is little weak. It should be supported with recent references of Industry 4.0 and its technologies importance for SMEs.
Line no 28, support with appropriate reference.
Background of Industry 4.0 should be included. Specifically in SMEs. Brief of studies focused on I4.0 principles and tools in SME could be discussed in introduction. Further include research questions and objectives.
Following articles would help in improving the discussion on Industry 4.0:
[10.3390/app10238566, 10.3390/app11136127, 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107487, 10.1108/IJQRM-06-2021-0174, “State of the art review on Industry 4.0 in manufacturing with the focus on automotive sector”, https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0505, 10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0283]
Also, authors should add brief description of Industry 4.0 technologies which will help readers to understand the concept as implementation strategies begins with technological understanding.
Literature review
Although Line no. 47 discusses I4.0 section. It can be further enhanced by adding the points mentioned in introduction.
How Figure 1 is derived. Support with recent reference. In Figure 1, clarify, engineering software, Crowd, expand AR/VR. What is the significance of including predictive maintenance in services category?
Line no. 76, Section 2.2 is vague. What is the significance of including 24 business practices in implementation section? Please enhance this section by including key implementation studies on I4.0. Refer: “State of the art review on Industry 4.0 in manufacturing with the focus on automotive sector”.
Methodology section should discuss the appropriate tool that had been used in the study. Please enhance.
Line no. 142 to 152 discusses about industry. Better start this section with discussing on implementation strategies.
Description on figure 2 need enhancement.
Line no. 198, How the factors and their levels are decided.
Results and discussion are presented clearly. However, discussion inline with the benefits for SME to be briefed. Further, comparative analysis of present study with existing studies may be included to understand I4.0 implementation status. Discuss the principles and tools of I4.0 required for SME.
Implications are absent. Practical and Managerial implications need to be included.
Conclusion section needs improvement. Answer the research questions and provide limitations and future research direction.
Author Response
Hi Baker, we want to thank you and the reviewers for your valuable comments. We answered all the reviewers’ comments, one by one, and we added the missing references. Please see our comments in red. The reviewers’ comments made the paper even better as well as more complete and more precise.
Best regards,
Please find our answer to both referres.
Samir, Chantal, Georges & Sebastien
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper aims to show a methodology to overcome labor recruiting and retention, competitiveness, digital shift, and access to financing challenges. Although the topic seems interesting the paper has a lot of issues listed below:
[1] The paper requires English proofreading
[2] The scope of this paper is not attractive and interesting, the abstract is not clear it must be modified. Highlight the methodology proposed and the results that the paper will show.
[3] Some sections of the article are general, or in their absence, redundant or ambiguous; which prevents to appreciate the depth of the study and its findings. For example sections 3 and 4
[4] It is not clear the novelty of the article: there are already in the literature other reviews/surveys. In fact, in order to emphasize the novelty of the provided content, the most relevant reviews on the topic should be cited and the differential contributions of the provided article (i.e., the contributions that cannot be found in other papers) should be highlighted.
[5] The introduction section is too short. The introduction establishes the scope, context, and significance of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal, and outlining the remaining structure and organization of the paper.
[6] The presentation of results also does not seem to conform to common standards. It is redundant, and should only include the presentation of findings and not interpretations. The latter have to be reserved for the discussion section.
[7] I would like to see a well-developed discussion (minimum two pages) comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature (at least one to two paragraphs) and followed by a subsection on Implications for practice (at least one page). In these paragraphs authors should compare their research approach with previous research, citing references of others' research.
[8] Please, form the conclusion in the following manner: (i) First paragraph - summary of research and conclusion - e.g. In this paper... ; (ii) Second paragraph - comparison with previous research; (iii) Third paragraph - short description of practical implications; (iv) Fourth paragraph - summary of paper limitations and further implications.
[9] Re-write the result section to understand in a better way the methodology proposed by the authors, this section now is hard to read and connect with the methodology proposed.
Author Response
Hi Baker, we want to thank you and the reviewers for your valuable comments. We answered all the reviewers’ comments, one by one, and we added the missing references. Please see our comments in red. The reviewers’ comments made the paper even better as well as more complete and more precise.
Best regards,
Samir, Chantal, Georges & Sebastien
Please find our answr in the draft letter,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed majority of my comments. I appreciate the revision work. However, I have few minor suggestions:
Kindly ehnance the discussion of the study and compare with the exisiting studies
Enhance the conclusion section with more limitations and future research directions.
Kindly check the reference list. Ref 39 and 44 are same.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have addressed majority of my comments. I appreciate the revision work. However, I have few minor suggestions:
Thank you very much for your comments. The paper has improved considerably. We really appreciate your work and your valuable comments. Thanks again.
Kindly ehnance the discussion of the study and compare with the exisiting studies
We have done this. See lines 480-488, 525-531, 548-550 and 554-562.
We added a paragraph that explains the complementarity of our research with this paper.
Enhance the conclusion section with more limitations and future research directions.
See the conclusion; we added two paragraphs explaining limitations and future research.
Kindly check the reference list. Ref 39 and 44 are same.
Thank you! We replaced reference 39 with reference 54 and removed reference 54.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors updated the manuscript to address all the comments previously cited.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Your comments significantly improved the paper. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
