A Model of Product Life Cycle Cost Management Based on the Example of the Spartan Multimedia Shooting Training System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The whole paper, its individual parts are described very briefly, which I consider insufficient in the subsequent presentation of the results of the submitted research. I also miss the scientific contribution of this paper...
Specifically, I recommend editing the post:
Describe what is the research gap of the paper and what new is in it.
Describe research questions.
Please describe the links between the research gap and the goal of the paper and the research question. Write why the paper is important.
The paper also lacks the real discussion part. The current discussion means rather a conclusion, not a discussion. 
What are the similarities and differences? Authors should compare the results with theoretical models from literature, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic but does not contain new and significant information to justify publication. The main part of the paper presents models described in the previous article (Swiderski and Glogowski 2019). The paper does not cite a range of appropriate sources. In particular, the literature review on target costing method and LCC method is missing. The new and most interesting part of the article is in the Summary. In my opinion, the Authors should move table 3 to the main part of the article and focus on the analyzes carried out there.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper should be extensively detailed. The paper, after a brief discussion of the methodology, already known to the LCC researchers, examines a case of limited interest to readers.
The bibliographic review should be expanded.
The service life period seems long to me, especially that of 30 years.
Paragraph 4 should be divided into two parts, the first part, including the table and up to line 210, in the previous paragraph, as it is a comment on the search results. The second part, after the table, from row 211, are the conclusions, which should be further investigated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no objections or recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors improved the paper. Accepted in current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have seen the responses to my review. I am satisfied, the paper can be published.