Dynamic Graphical Instructions Result in Improved Attitudes and Decreased Task Completion Time in Human–Robot Co-Working: An Experimental Manufacturing Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Research goals and contributions should be stated more clearly in the Introduction section.
2. Structure of the paper should be added at the end of Introduction section.
3. Please provide figure 2 in better quality, and explain it in more details.
4. Figure 5 and 6 should be provided in better quality.
5. The obtained experimental results must be discussed in more details.
6. Provide more details about existing dataset [39]
7. Discuss the limitations of the proposed experimental setup.
8. Conclusion is missing. Please provide brief overview of the results, limitations and possible directions of the future work in conclusion.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper explores how dynamic graphical signage could aid human-robot collaboration in manufacturing.

While the experiment conducted with 39 shop floor employees might be of interest, the submitted paper would require substantial and extensive work prior to be considered for publication in the journal Sustainability. The authors are encouraged to revise the submitted text starting with a proper introduction within the general theory.

The submitted paper presents in detail the experiment but fails to provide a proper, actually any, explanation of why this experiment is important, how it contributes to fill out gaps in the existing body of knowledge and what its implications are. 

The paper fails to properly explain the context, to review the existing state of the art, to identify gaps, to put forward research questions, to introduce and justify the use of the selected methodology and derive conclusions from the experiment conducted. The paper mainly focuses on the description of the experiment, which even of great interest might of little or no interest to the wide audience. Therefore, it would be of outmost importance to explain properly the rationale for conducting such an experiment and how it adds to the existing body of knowledge.

The authors should thoroughly reviser an expand the literature review. Currently, it is too brief and in such a rapidly evolving field it is surprising to see the scarcity of recent references hence one can conclude the literature review conducted is incomplete.

Specific comments on Introduction:

Line 30, growth in working-age population declines...Please qualify the statement and explain in which set of countries. This is not true for all countries in the world. Moreover, you might wish to add more recent references.

Line 32, reference 2 is old, please add more recent references.

Lines 35 and 602, please indicate the year of this reference as it is missing.

Lines 35 and 36, please explain where as the statement does not hold true for all countries in the world.

Line 37, "...increasing demands..."which increasing demands? Please clarify.

Lines 44 and 45 first sentence, please insert reference to back your statement about the lack of confidence as a barrier for technology to achieve a positive impact.

References 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26-28, 29-30 please add more recent references.

Lines 49, 50, 51 please add reference to back the statement.

Line 60 you refer for the first time to signage with no definition being provided for the expert audience. 

Lines 72-74, which results are you talking about? the results of previous studies? or of this paper?

Lines 88-89 please indicate the source and year.

Line105 which findings are you talking about? Please clarify.

Lines 108, which work? Please insert reference.

Lines 118-120 introduces your research question. Please explain the rationale and why this is important. You might also wish to explain properly in the paper how you selected the industry, how representative it is and whether your results can be generalised to other industries and countries.

Line 126 Please clarify what you mean by ecological validity.

Please re-write the introduction so the reader can understand the state of the art-, the rationale for your paper, the objectives and the expected results with a clear delineation of the limits of your reserach.

Section 2 Materials and methods

Please write an introduction explaining the rationale for conducting such an experiment and justify why this is the best possible approach.

2.4 Participants

Please explain how the selection was done, how representative the sample is and whether the conclusions can be generalise to other industries and countries. You might wish to explain how you selected the 40 workers.

2.5 Task and procedure, line 194 you might wish to indicate where the industrial partner's factory is located,

6. Discussion the authors are invited to review the flow of the paper and ensure that the discussion is put into context of the existing body of knowledge to conclude with a clear set of conclusions deriving from the experiment and an indication of the limitations of the study that could and should be addressed by future research.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Lines 75-77, first sentence, what is the source? are you quoting someone else's work?

Lines 79-81, the reference dates back to 2010, what has happened since then? No other study has been conducted since then? If so, whay not?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all my concerns from the previous round, and the paper can be accepted in the current form.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the Reviewer's comments and suggestions made to improve this manuscript. Many thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript and your responses to most of the recommendations made.

Title: Your title is too general and it will be difficult (or misleading) for the reader. You might wish to review the title and delineate more clearly the contours of your paper -perhaps including a reference to the fact it is a case study.

Abstract: The same applies to your abstract. Please review it. As an example, it does not even mention that your study was conducted in the UK. You might wish to highlight more clearly the contribution of your paper.

Line 583, Is Study 1 with archival study what you later refer to as Study 2? Please clarify.

Introduction and conclusions: Please clarify more clearly the motivation and rationale, with particular emphasis on the interest for potential readers, of your paper, how the selected methodological approach responds to your research questions and the significance and interest of your conclusions.

Bibliography: Please revise all references you have included in the bibliography and ensure their correctness, completeness and accuracy. Also, revise the style to ensure all of them follow the same convention.

Your reference 64 Paton, D. Responding to Hazard Effects: Promoting Resilience and Adjustment Adoption. The Australian Journal 2275 of Emergency Management 16, 47–52, doi:10.3316/informit.368969504068042.

is incomplete and wrong. It should read Paton, D., Johnston, D., Smith, L., Millar, M. (2001). Responding to hazard effects: Promoting resilience and adjustment adoption. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 16(1), 47–52. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.368969504068042

 

Author Response

Thank you for the Reviewer's comments and suggestions in order to improve the manuscript. We have adjusted the manuscript and the response to the Reviewer's suggestions are attached in the word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript. Please find herewith a couple of recommendations:

15 lines 587-588 "Task performance and its efficiency are among the main drives for technology introduction in manufacturing." PLEASE provide a relevant reference.

I would like to invite you to do a final spelling check to ensure that no typos are left; see, for instance, page 17, line 684 "Frist of all,"

 

 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the Reviewer's comments and suggestions made to improve this manuscript. The responses to the latest suggestions are below:

1. 15 lines 587-588 "Task performance and its efficiency are among the main drives for technology introduction in manufacturing." PLEASE provide a relevant reference.

Response: Many thanks for directing our attention towards the missing reference. The references have been included:

Sima, V.; Gheorghe, I.G.; Subić, J.; Nancu, D. Influences of the Industry 4.0 Revolution on the Human Capital Development and Consumer Behavior: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4035.

Dalenogare, L.S.; Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. The Expected Contribution of Industry 4.0 Technologies for Industrial Performance. International Journal of Production Economics 2018, 204, 383–394.

 

2. I would like to invite you to do a final spelling check to ensure that no typos are left; see, for instance, page 17, line 684 "Frist of all,"

Response: Thank you for the Reviewer’s comment. The manuscript has been revised with extra care on spelling and typos.