The Significance of IoT Technology in Improving Logistical Processes and Enhancing Competitiveness: A Case Study on the World’s and Slovakia’s Wood-Processing Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an important and interesting topic for the readers and has the potentials to be better. The paper needs improvement, especially in the Methodology section, and in addition to reformulating sections such as references, previous studies, and abstract. Finally proofreading for the English language by a specialist is needed.
My detailed notes are attached to the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear editor,
Thank you for Your recommendations, they were very useful for us because with them we can make article with higher quality. We appreciate Your opinion and advices and we tried implement every of Your recommendation.
Line 13 – 32
Abstract section was improved by better description of methodology, most prominent results and criteria which was important for choosing relevant case study. Information about future research in this field was also supplemented.
Line 235 - 281
In Methodology section authors described selection of methods in more detailed way. Instead of word „we“ is properly use „authors or article“, what we have done.
Line 62 and 235
For better systematic structure was changed position of methodology, which is now chapter 3 and literature review is chapter 2.
Line 537
We tried to fix and improve every single recommendation. As a part of Conlusions was used a link between current situation in Slovakia and world, futher research etc.
Authors gave article to the correction, Englisch Editing Services through MDPI Author Services.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article analyzes a case study of several wood processing companies. The purpose of the article is not presented, but the presented case study is very interesting. The work is unfortunately chaotic, but after putting it in order and introducing corrections, it will be a very interesting study.
Summary needs to be edited as it is chaotic. The purpose of the study was not indicated.
In the introduction, there is no need to define logistics and logistics management. The purpose of the work was not indicated either. There is also no research hypothesis. It is not known why the entire study was written.
The test methods are not described, but as this is a case report, it is not necessary.
Part of the literature review does not concern the topic of the work. It should describe the IoT technology, logistics processes and competition in this area.
3.1. Logistics audit and diagnostics of logistics processes - what does this fragment bring to the study?
3.2. Logistics and Logistics Processes course - off topic. Contains digital trends only from 2018 to 2022.
Chaos reigns at the end of work. First it's 4.4. Key findings later 4.5. General model of the solution design implementation, then 4. Discussion (incorrect numbering of chapters) and 5. Conclusions. It is necessary to organize.
After making corrections, the article will be coherent and interesting.
Author Response
Dear editor,
Thank you for Your recommendations, they were very useful for us because with them we can make article with higher quality. We appreciate Your opinion and advices and we tried implement every of Your recommendation.
Line 36 – 61, especially in 40
In the introduction was deleted definition of term logistics management. Term logistics is for us important for the article and was defined only in introduction, which means it is not duplicated. The test methods and hypothesis are not desribed because article is a case report.
Line 62 and 86, 88
Part 3.1. now it is part 2.1. was important for making logistics audit in selected wood-company in Slovakia, from logistics audit we got useful information which we used for design of general model. As a part of arcticle is this chapter for reason, that we followed procedure in this part, from source [23].
Line 235, 456 etc. in whole article
Authors put Methodology section after theory, at the end of work we improved and corrected numbering of chapters.
Line 106
Part 3.2. now 2.2. is for us important because show the main digital trends, timing from 2018 to 2022 was chose because we want to reserach effects of implementation of general model in these years when will be this trend relevant.
Authors gave article to the correction, Englisch Editing Services through MDPI Author Services.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a literature review in the field of IoT and the wood industry on the world and in Slovakia. In the article the authors presented The General Model of the Implementation of the IoT technology in wood-processing industry. The presented model can be effectively used in wood industry.
However, the authors did not avoid mistakes:
- It is a good practice to present the name before using the abbreviation. Example: ... Internet of things (IoT). The authors use some of the abbreviations (IoT, ICTs) without explaining them before. Another problem is using inconsistently abbreviations and full names as for example Industry 4.0 and I4.0.
- The literature review goes from general to specific. Following chapters are the logical chain resulting from the previous ones. This is a good practice. However, the choice of literature is questionable in some cases. They are often unreviewed Czech publications. It is difficult to argue with such sources and they should not state as a base for a review in a scientific publication. Point 3.3.2. is based on the publications [30 - 41] written by one author - Novotný, R., all written in the ‘Logistics’, Czech industry magazine published in years 2018-2020. These are not scientific publications. The same is about position [23] which is a base for chapter 3.1. Referrals following ‘a considerable impact of the following digital trends from 2018 to 2022’ are not clear to follow as the authors put 40 literature positions in blankets one after another. Those sources should be assigned to specific ones of 34 points bulleted by the authors. Then the readers may be able to find the appropriate source of specific bullet. A better way to present such cases is a form of the table.
- Incorrect numbering: ‘4. Results, 4. Discussion.’ Both chapters have the same number.
- Unintuitive text division. Chapter 3 is an overview. Chapter 4. is named as results but in fact it is an overview of information about the wood on the world and Slovakia. Chapter 4.5 is in fact model description. It is more intuitive to present it as a separate chapter.
- In chapter 4.4 the authors refer to declarations from companies such as CISCO. However, there is no reference to the literature, although the authors previously referred to trade magazines.
- Figures need correction. Figure 6 has a white background below the text. As this is the authors' work it could be corrected easily. Figure 7. could be more visible. Now it's hard to read it. Figure 4. and 5. have poor quality
Author Response
Dear editor,
Thank you for Your recommendations, they were very useful for us because with them we can make article with higher quality. We appreciate Your opinion and advices and we tried implement every of Your recommendation.
Line 18, 43, 106, 109, 111
Authors improved everything from recommendations. We used the name before using the abbreviation in whole article. We think that „Logistics“ magazine is relevant for this topic, because it has a lot of view and opinion of consultants in area of logistics, logistics processes and implementation internet of things in this area. We present this source and trends in table, every trend has assigned author and source is in specific bullet.
Line 412, 235, 282, 456
Chaos in numbering was also improved, Chapter 4.5 is now separate, Chapter 3 is methodology section, Chapter 4 is Results and 6. Discussion. So text division was also improved by recommendations.
Line 383, 390, 447 and 455
We corrected figure 4, 5, 6, 7 in actual version they have better quality and we think they are more visible.
Authors gave article to the correction, Englisch Editing Services through MDPI Author Services.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors:
Thank you for your efforts, I think your paper has been improved so much from your old version, please try to check the duplication of the section (2.Materials and Methods Page 2 and page 8), and finally, I think references still need to review to meet the journal's requirement.
Best wishes
Author Response
Dear editor,
Thank you for Your further recommendations. We are glad that You think that after implementation of Your recommendations is our article improved, better and with higher quality. We check Your other advices. Here are the results.
We were trying to find the duplicity in Methodological section on pages 2 and 8. In Word version of our article is not this duplicity. Duplicity was only in PDF version of the article. We think that this mistake should be update and correct by administrator. In second version, after Your first review, was Material and Methodology Chapter 3 (lines 235 – 281), Literature Review was and also is Chapter 2 in line 62.
We reviewed References to meet journal´s needs. Lines: 568, 570, 573-582, 586-587, 589, 591, 595, 601, 606-608, 610-611, 613-614, 616-624, 628, 631-632, 634-636, 638-639, 641, 643, 645-650, 653, 655-657, 661-663, 665-668, 670, 674-676, 681, 683-685, 687-695, 697, 699-700, 702-709, 712-714, 716-724, 726, 728, 730-733, 739-741, 745-746.
We hope that now is correct.
After Your first recommendations authors also gave article to the to the correction, Englisch Editing Services through MDPI Author Services. So version two and also this version of article has Englisch correction by MDPI. We hope that English language and style is now improved and with higher quality.
Thank you very much again for Your feedback, which help us write better articles.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for explaining the first review. After introducing corrections, I recommend the article for publication.
Author Response
Dear editor,
Thank you for Your further recommendations. We are glad that You think that after implementation of Your recommendations is our article ready for publication. We check Your other advices. Here are the results.
We implemented every of Your recommendations in first review. We have done every introducing corrections. After Your first recommendations authors also gave article to the to the correction, Englisch Editing Services through MDPI Author Services. So version two and also this version of article has Englisch correction by MDPI. We hope that English language and style is now improved and with higher quality.
Thank you very much again for Your feedback, which help us write better articles.
