Metrology Process to Produce High-Value Components and Reduce Waste for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, in my opinion, the article does not fit the "Sustainability" journal. There is no connection between the research and the journal's aims, and there is no clear demonstration of a significant impact on the aspects of sustainable development. I believe that the article is at a relatively early stage of development. There is no basic theoretical model. The originality and technical level of the paper are low. The article is of poor quality scientifically and requires considerable improvement. 
The manuscript should be significantly corrected and submitted, e.g. to the Applied Sciences journal (Mdpi).

Suggestions:
1)  The article is slightly undermined by the lack of a clearly specified statement of the author's intentions. The article's aim is not clearly defined in the abstract and introduction sections. The presented research results do not correspond to the topic of the work and the purpose of the work. 
2) The theoretical background is presented very briefly. Authors should present the research gap in detail, refer to other solutions presented in other works, etc. 
3) The research method is weak. There is no basic theoretical model of research, its formalization.
4) There is no discussion in the manuscript after the results are presented.
5) Authors should highlight their own achievements and findings in the discussion section.
6) The authors used only 26 references.
7) The authors conclude that "The proposed framework can reduce the number of rejected components substantially if coupled with the control system of a manufacturing setup". On what basis is this statement? Where is the proposed framework presented?
8) The novelty of this paper is not clearly presented. Finally, briefly mention the paper's main contributions at the end of the introduction and conclusion.
9) It may also be interesting to discuss further research in the conclusion section briefly. 

The paper reads more like a report from experiments than an academic research paper. 

   

 

 

Author Response

dear sir/ madam kindly find the attachment.

 I am looking forward for your positive response. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents implements a novel, efficient, swift, and costeffective Industry 4.0 based framework which introduces quality control into the manufacturing phase to  solve these problems. This manuscript can be considered for publication if the authors can address the following comments:

1. The overall sentence and grammar need to be checked and corrected.
2. In the title, delete the ' Framework, Implementation and Statistical Validation of a. ' 
3. In sentence number 53, delete the space: 'techniques that can employ for.'
4. The quality of Figures 1,3,5, and 10 is very poor. Higher quality figures must be applied with much higher resolution.
5. Additionally, in the introduction section, what was done and what was found should be more analytically presented.
6. Literature should be extended (most of the cited works are before 2017, and plenty of literature in the field is available lately) and include more recent papers such as the following:

 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213697 (in introduction related to the geometry of the designed components)

- DOI: 10.1109/ICECCME52200.2021.9590990 (related to the DOE methods)

7. Explain clearly what DOE method is used.
8. How the parameters and their values were selected should be explained.
9. Units in Tables must be added. All figures must be illustrated in high quality. 
10. Please explain why you use the p-values in this Table 6? I suggest using the percentage contribution better.
11. Change Table 4 to Figure11 and replace the '(2)Trail Number 24' instead of 'Trail Number 24'.
12. References need corrections in format and typos.
13. Formula font size should be reduced. It seems the manuscript is prepared without care.   
14. The main reference of each formula must be cited. Moreover, each parameter in the equations must be introduced. Please double-check this issue.
15. Discussion about the results is missing in the manuscript, why this outcome is expected or not, evaluation with literature and analysis or comparison between the results determined in the experiments should be included in the work.

 

Author Response

dear sir/ madam kindly find the attachment.

 I am looking forward to your positive response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, be careful in the Abstract-the originality and novelty of the research activity are not well exposed and highlighted.

Page 2, Figure 1.- the requested quality is missing

Page 3, Methodology- the aim of the research is missing. What is important if you want to implement Industry 4.0 into the enterprise? What is important if you want to create a digital enterprise?

Page 9, Figures 8-10 are poorly commented. Please, describe more relevant information about obtained results.

Page 13, Conclusion- the future direction of research is missing. 

Author Response

Dear sir/ madam kindly find the attachment

I am looking forward to your positive responce

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the paper. They have taken into account some suggested suggestions mentioned in the review. The article is still at a relatively low scientific level. 
The sentence which describes the aim of the paper should be moved from the methodology section to the introduction section. 
In section “discussion”, authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from previous studies' perspectives and the aim of the research. Moreover, the authors should discuss the findings in the broadest context. I can't find a discussion about future research in the conclusion. Authors should briefly describe directions for further research that may inspire others, especially younger researchers. 

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Hope you are doing well.

Thank you sir for your response.

Kindly find the attachment.

Changes in the draft are made accordingly to the required suggestion.

Waiting for a positive reply.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors corrected the manuscript, but they should discuss the obtained results more broadly in the context of other studies conducted by other authors. I pointed out this in a previous review. 

Despite this, the article has been significantly improved.

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam

Kindly find the attached file.

waiting for a Positive response

 

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx