Fostering Design for Sustainability through the Adoption of Computer-Aided Engineering Tools in the Development of Energy-Related Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

190 / 5.000  

esultados de tradução

Resultado da tradução

Considering the Reviewers' recommendations, I congratulate the authors for the improvements or adjustments made to the text, which satisfactorily meet the recommendations outlined. 

Resultados de tradução

Resultado da tradução

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Please check the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

The paper is valuable and interesting read, however, it needs improvements.

I believe the following recommendations might help improving the paper.

3. Case Study: Induction Hob

I am afraid in the current state the “Case Study: Induction Hob” section is too wordy looking as a separate report (paper). Maybe to reduce significantly this section transmitting some valuable paragraphs and figures to the “Results and Discussion” section. Also, improving coherency might help.

Methodology

I think the methodology needs short and clear presentation to sustain readers interest’ and further reading. Readers will appreciate if authors provide a flowchart of the proposed methodology significantly reducing a number of text lines. Also, please mention the software that was used in the study (e.g. to provide guidelines framework for the conceptual design phase (Fig. 13); FEM, CMD, etc.).

Results and Discussion

I am afraid the “Results and Discussion” section lack of the findings and the thorough discussion. The paper might benefit if authors discuss their results in more detail. This will help readers to understand the value of the research providing more citations.

Maybe to explain how the results of the research work for the goal of the paper:  “… is to put into practice a novel approach for gathering, sharing, and reuse eco-knowledge with the aim to support engineers in the development of industrial product that fits with design for sustainability principles…”.

Conclusions

Please pay attention to typos throughout the paper (e.g. line 647: …The proposed methodology proposed…).

Readers will appreciate if authors be more specific underlining the most important finding and their impact to the industry and society. Please, shorten the conclusions.

Although the paper has a potential for publishing, it needs revision.

Regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

The paper has been improved.

Regards,

Reviewer

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

At the end of the Abstract (page 1), the contributions of the study to the area of knowledge could be explained. In the Introduction (pages 1 and 2), the concept of "eco-design" should be more clearly presented. The section "2. Literature Analysis" (pages 2 and 3) has only one paragraph, which is exaggeratedly long, and is not enlightening to the reader (the text is very dense and confusing). There could be a better argumentation and characterization of the chosen case study. The "5. Results and Discussion" (page 22 and 23) section is superficial (there could be a greater connection between the literature accessed, the methodology addressed and the case study analyzed). In section "6. Conclusions and future works" (pages 23 and 24), there is a lack of a more in-depth approach to the theoretical implications and/or managerial implications arising from the case study carried out, as well as further reflection on the limitations of the research. At the end of the text it is not clear what are the contributions of the study to the area of knowledge.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work proposal presented by the authors is interesting and relevant to the scientific community. However, the text of the manuscript needs significant reformulation to be able to be analyzed for publication in Sustainability. In its format, the manuscript is an excerpt from a dissertation or thesis without the textual adaptation expected for a scientific article. The manuscript has too many figures, many of which are illegible and of questionable functionality to exemplify the text. The literature review is poor for a section that is specifically dedicated to this and the methodology is more important than its application in the case study.

Other considerations about the work can be seen below:

Authors should not repeat identical expressions in the keywords that exist in the title, as is the case with "eco-design".

Authors should not use acronyms in the abstract without explanation (for example: CAE, FEM and CFD) and should avoid, if possible, the use of acronyms in the title.

The acronym CAE must be explained before its first use and its concept must be presented, even if succinctly, to readers who are not accustomed to the expression.

The language used in the last paragraph of the introduction is very useful in dissertations and theses, but not in objective articles, such as the one presented. It is not necessary to explain each section in detail, with the aim of making the text more objective for the reader.

The text "The present research intercepts three main keywords and related concepts: eco-de-82 sign, energy-related products, and CAD/CAE systems. The literature analysis provides a 83 general overview of these topics identifying the main issues, especially concerning their 84 effective and systematic integration" is not in appropriate language for an article in the Sustainability journal. It is not necessary to explain or justify the choice of keywords or specific concepts. You can directly start the text by explaining and contextualizing the fundamental concepts of the work.

The entire section 2. "Literature Analysis" is problematic. It does not provide a classic review presenting the evolution and state of the art of the line of research. A series of works are presented almost separately, without their context being adequately presented. Very general lines of evolution are presented, which makes the section a weakness of the work. If authors want the bibliographic review to be a specific section of the work, they must greatly increase the robustness of their discussion. Currently it should be reformulated and merged with the introduction as it is simplified to form its own section.

Again, the first paragraph of Section 3 is not necessary, removing objectivity from the article text.

Figure 1 should be called by number and not as figure "below". In scientific articles of this size, the positioning of the figure depends on the publication of the journal, so the position where the figure will be inserted is not precise before editing. There are several acronyms in Figure 1 that must be explained in the caption, as every figure must be self-explanatory.

There is too much repetition of format and expressions like "In this step" that make the text difficult to read in Section 3.1.

Figure 4 has illegible details. Therefore, it is not suitable for publication.

The whole section 3 is also confusing. It presents an extremely in-depth methodology and with writing that is sometimes repetitive. Section 4 being the case study presentation means that section 3 has little connection with the rest of the text. The way to move from the methodology to the study case needs to be more fluid and direct, with this way of presenting the work being explained from the introduction, which is not the case. In this way, the sections lack cohesion between them.

The case study example is very abrupt with the rest of the text. It was not introduced properly and causes a break in the reading rhythm. Again looking like the writing model for a graduate text and not the writing of a scientific article.

Section 4 has too many figures, many of them with illegible texts and which do not help to exemplify or illustrate the activities being conducted by the authors.

Sections 5 and 6 are better, being objective and presenting their texts in a connected way, but they are presented at a time when the manuscript is already quite compromised in its format.