A Precondition of Sustainability: Industry 4.0 Readiness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper.
Paper is written on an interesting topic, but before publication, some adjustments need to be made.
There is a big difference between a small and a large business. The fact that the author writes that it is a limitation of the article, that he does not segment it is, in my opinion, insufficient.
In my opinion, it is necessary to create individual analyses for small, medium, and large companies and compare it.
The second area concerns social network analysis. The author used only the eigenvector of centrality. Why didn't he use betweenes centrality or other metrics to add more information?
The topic is interesting, but it is necessary to extract more information from the data.
Author Response
Point by point response to Reviewer 1 of Manuscript Ref. No.: sustainability-1210757 Entitled "A precondition of sustainability: Industry 4.0 readiness“.
Reviewer #1
Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. The Paper is written on an interesting topic, but before publication, some adjustments need to be made. The topic is interesting, but it is necessary to extract more information from the data.
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this kind comment.
Comment 2: There is a big difference between a small and a large business. The fact that the author writes that it is a limitation of the article, that he does not segment it is, in my opinion, insufficient. In my opinion, it is necessary to create individual analyses for small, medium, and large companies and compare it.
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for making us aware of the need to create an individual analysis for small, medium, and large companies. Consistent with the reviewer’s suggestion, we did additional analysis for small, medium, and large companies, which are shown in Tables 5 and 6. In the part of the discussion, we compare the values from the tables.
Comment 3: The second area concerns social network analysis. The author used only the eigenvector of centrality. Why didn't he use betweenes centrality or other metrics to add more information?
Response: We appreciate the excellent suggestion the reviewer provided. In the revised manuscript, we modified our initial research analysis by adding a density of the network in the results and discussion part. We modified the rest of the manuscript accordingly. For your convenience, we have highlighted in red the changes in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to point out that the paper deals with an interesting topic. However, the level of presentation of scientific papers is very low.
The introduction does not clearly emphasize why the Social Network Analysis method is used by the authors.
There is no more detailed description of the Social Network Analysis method and no literature review in terms of its application, as well as the potential in the area of industrial and technical relations. Moreover, the authors use e.g. eigenvector, but do not present its explanation, calculation method, etc.
Figure 1 is of poor quality and the description in the manuscript is unclear. Do the steps of figure 1 match the levels in the text?
There is no precise linking of the methodology the authors refer to in section 3.2 with labeled digital technologies in section 3.3.
The research results seem to be very general. There is no deeper analysis. Not every company can or should use various technological solutions.
The paper requires a thorough reconstruction and extension.
Author Response
Point by point response to Reviewer 2 of Manuscript Ref. No.: sustainability-1210757 Entitled "A precondition of sustainability: Industry 4.0 readiness“.
Reviewer #2
Comment 1: I would like to point out that the paper deals with an interesting topic. However, the level of presentation of scientific papers is very low. The paper requires a thorough reconstruction and extension
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this valuable comment.
Comment 2: The introduction does not clearly emphasize why the Social Network Analysis method is used by the authors.
Response: We thank the reviewer for making us aware of the need to provide clearly emphasize why the Social Network Analysis method is used by the authors. We added this part in the introduction and also in the methodology part of SNA.
Comment 3: There is no more detailed description of the Social Network Analysis method and no literature review in terms of its application, as well as the potential in the area of industrial and technical relations. Moreover, the authors use e.g. eigenvector, but do not present its explanation, calculation method, etc.?
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to strengthen the paper. We detailed present the value of SNA for this type of research in the methodology part. Also, we explain how we perform eigenvector analysis in the methodology.
Comment 4: Figure 1 is of poor quality and the description in the manuscript is unclear. Do the steps of figure 1 match the levels in the text? There is no precise linking of the methodology the authors refer to in section 3.2 with labeled digital technologies in section 3.3.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We changed Figure 1 with a better resolution and detailed explain the relations between Figure 1 and steps in the general readiness model. Furthermore, we detailed explain connectivity between methodology and results.
Comment 5: The research results seem to be very general. There is no deeper analysis. Not every company can or should use various technological solutions.
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for making us aware of the need to do a deeper analysis. Consistent with the reviewer’s suggestion of deeper analysis, we did additional analysis for small, medium, and large companies, which are shown in Tables 5 and 6. In the part of the discussion, we compare the values from the tables. Moreover, in the revised manuscript, we modified our initial research analysis by adding a density of the network in the results and discussion part. We modified the rest of the manuscript accordingly. For your convenience, we have highlighted in red the changes in the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper identifies the I4.0 readiness level of the Serbian manufacturing industry using a survey-based method. The study reviews the I4.0 concepts and technologies and analyses the deviation on the I4.0 readiness level in Serbia between 2015 and 2018. Although it can be a useful paper in terms of picturing the I4.0 readiness level of Serbia in 2018, there is literately no direct link to the concept of sustainability apart from the paper title. Since I4.0 has a direct impact on sustainability (both positive (e.g., resource utilisation improvements, etc.,) and negative (e.g., increased energy consumption from sensors and machinery, etc.,)), I was expecting a more detailed research work including the I4.0 readiness considering the sustainability aspects and strategies to be embraced by the Serbian companies. Considering the MDPI Sustainability aims to address challenges relating to sustainability, I suggest the authors re-visit their studies including sustainability aspects or submit it to a more suitable journal.
Author Response
Point by point response to Reviewer 3 of Manuscript Ref. No.: sustainability-1210757 Entitled "A precondition of sustainability: Industry 4.0 readiness“.
Reviewer #3
Comment 1: The paper identifies the I4.0 readiness level of the Serbian manufacturing industry using a survey-based method. The study reviews the I4.0 concepts and technologies and analyses the deviation on the I4.0 readiness level in Serbia between 2015 and 2018. Although it can be a useful paper in terms of picturing the I4.0 readiness level of Serbia in 2018, there is literately no direct link to the concept of sustainability apart from the paper title. Since I4.0 has a direct impact on sustainability (both positive (e.g., resource utilisation improvements, etc.,) and negative (e.g., increased energy consumption from sensors and machinery, etc.,)), I was expecting a more detailed research work including the I4.0 readiness considering the sustainability aspects and strategies to be embraced by the Serbian companies. Considering the MDPI Sustainability aims to address challenges relating to sustainability, I suggest the authors re-visit their studies including sustainability aspects or submit it to a more suitable journal.
Response: We would like to express our deepest gratitude to reviewer for the given suggestions about improving our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewer for making us aware of the need to better explain the sustainability aspects in the paper. We have modified Introduction and Literature review sections to address these aspects.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents an interesting up-to-date topic. The main objective was to apply Industry 4.0 general readiness 10 assessment methodology and social network analysis to find out the readiness level of Serbian manufacturing and how do digital technologies interplay during the time. The paper is generally well written and organized. However, the following points need to be addressed:
Abstract: Please, add something about the benefits of the research.
Literature Review:
Please explain, why did you use the I4.0 general readiness assessment methodology developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI?
Limitations of the study:
Is the size of the company the only limitation of the study? Please extend this issue.
Recommendations:
Recommendation to the companies’ managers must be there and it is responsibility of scientist to device such solution which are practically applicable. Why investing in proposed soultion will allow to compete with competitors and could the readiness level towards smart manufacturing?
Author Response
Point by point response to Reviewer 4 of Manuscript Ref. No.: sustainability-1210757 Entitled "A precondition of sustainability: Industry 4.0 readiness“.
Reviewer #4
Comment 1: The paper presents an interesting up-to-date topic. The main objective was to apply Industry 4.0 general readiness 10 assessment methodology and social network analysis to find out the readiness level of Serbian manufacturing and how do digital technologies interplay during the time. The paper is generally well written and organized. However, the following points need to be addressed.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to strengthen the paper.
Comment 2: Abstract: Please, add something about the benefits of the research.
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for making us aware of the need to better explain the main contribution of the research in the abstract discussion section. We added the main contribution to this part.
Comment 3: Literature Review: Please explain, why did you use the I4.0 general readiness assessment methodology developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI?
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Consistent with the suggestion, in the literature review part, we added a part which explain why we use the model developed by Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI.
Comment 4: Limitations of the study: Is the size of the company the only limitation of the study? Please extend this issue.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added other limitations such as manufacturing sectors and the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic on the manufacturing companies.
Comment 5: Recommendation to the companies’ managers must be there and it is responsibility of scientist to device such solution which are practically applicable. Why investing in proposed soultion will allow to compete with competitors and could the readiness level towards smart manufacturing?
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for making us aware of the need to do better explain the contributions of the paper. Consistent with the reviewer’s suggestion we conducted additional analysis for small, medium, and large companies, which are shown in Tables 5 and 6. In the part of the discussion, we compare the values from the tables. Moreover, in the revised manuscript, we modified our initial research analysis by adding a density of the network in the results and discussion part. We modified the rest of the manuscript accordingly. For your convenience, we have highlighted in red the changes in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for incorporating the comments.
From my point of view, I consider the article to be of sufficient quality.
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer for this kind comment and for giving us the opportunity to publish our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made corrections and additions in the areas I indicated.
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer for this kind comment and for giving us the opportunity to publish our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your corrections and modifications.
You mentioned in the introduction section that "this study aims to investigate the direct impact of Industry 4.0 on sustainability". However, no discussion is provided regarding the implications of I4.0 digital transformation on sustainability considering the local dynamics of Serbian manufacturing. Please revise your discussion section by adding sustainability aspects based on the results you found, and provide an outlook for the future of I4.0 digital transformation and its expected implications on sustainability in the Serbian manufacturing domain.
Author Response
Point by point response to Reviewer 3 of Manuscript Ref. No.: sustainability-1210757 Entitled "A precondition of sustainability: Industry 4.0 readiness“.
Reviewer #3
Comment 1: Thank you for your corrections and modifications.
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this kind comment and for giving us the opportunity to strengthen the paper.
Comment 2: You mentioned in the introduction section that "this study aims to investigate the direct impact of Industry 4.0 on sustainability". However, no discussion is provided regarding the implications of I4.0 digital transformation on sustainability considering the local dynamics of Serbian manufacturing. Please revise your discussion section by adding sustainability aspects based on the results you found, and provide an outlook for the future of I4.0 digital transformation and its expected implications on sustainability in the Serbian manufacturing domain.
Response: We thank the reviewer for making us aware of the need to better explain the sustainability aspects in the paper. We have modified discussion and conclusion sections to address these aspects. For your convenience, we have highlighted, in red, the changes in the manuscript.
