Future and Innovative Design Requirements Applying Industry 4.0 Technologies on Underground Ammunition Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting and up-to-date but it has some flaws:

• Firstly the literature basis of the paper is not sufficient. Authors should add literature review chapter with up-to-date analysis of theoretical basis of the paper based on good peer-reviewed journals.
• Authors should describe research gap and write why the topic is important. They should describe relations between the paper goal and research gap.
• It would be good to describe the limitations of the study.
• The paper also lack the discussion part. There are here results without links to literature. In this part Authors should wrote how they research are with competition to other researchers. What are the similarities and differences. They should compare the results with theoretical models from literature, etc.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Ammunition storage is a topic that occupies several sectors, especially the military and government because this issue has many drawbacks in the long term if there are no solutions. Smart ammunition storage can provide some solutions to avoid future disasters. This research provides a comprehensive study on this topic. The authors proposed a strategy based on Delphi technology and smart ammunition storage in a battlefield environment. The authors selected 24 experts on smart technology and derived 18 required capabilities and 32 element technologies for this study (smart underground ammunition storage). This research is well structured/organized, research question/objective is clear, and the topic is significant/recent. Nonetheless, the authors should carefully address all of the following comments.

• The abstract is well written; however, authors should hint at the findings from this study at the end of the abstract.
• We suggest that the authors should eliminate keywords such as “Underground ammunition storage” and “Industry 4.0 technology" because these keywords are already found in the article title. It is preferable that they replace them with other words in order to expand the reach of the search.
• The sentence "According to a Building Services Research and Information Association report, this field is expected to grow from US 427 billion dollars in 2011 to US 1036 billion dollars in 2020" (page-lines36-37) is old because we are in 2020, question is, has this industry grown to $ 1036 billion in 2020?
• The research question is presented clearly and accurately.
• We recommend that the authors discuss/add the existing studies about the use of ammunition storage and the Delphi technique (In the introduction section or in a separate section).
• What are these acronyms “ROK”, “SWOT”, “CCTV”, “EMP” and “CBR” stands for? We know these acronyms; however, the paper should be independent. Sometimes the authors use "RoK" (page1-line45), and other times they use "ROK" (page3-line122).
• Figures and Tables: All figures and tables are well prepared with high resolution. In Figure 6, we suggest changing lines colors between required capabilities and selected technologies. We suggest that authors choose one color (lines) for each element in its required capabilities. This enables the reader to distinguish between lines.
• The authors described in the second paragraph the research conclusion. However, the conclusion section is very long, we suggest reducing the conclusion section in particular the first paragraph.
• References list: There are some minor mistakes in the reference list such as references [23] and [24] are not used in-text.
• Proofreading: This paper requires minor proofreading in terms of English writing. For example, some of the words require to add/remove "a", "an" and "the" in different places in this review (such as “US” (page1-line37), “simple” (page5-line149), “anonymity” (page5-line165), … etc.), author should use “decision-making” instead of “decision making” (page2-line73), remove “of” (page3-line117), add “of” after “round” (page6-line187), the sentence (page5-lines154-156) needs rephrasing. … etc. Authors should carefully check the entire paper to remove typos and grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have implemented my remarks.