Technologies Associated with Industry 4.0 in Green Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review
Haoxuan Yu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-written and informative study that provides a comprehensive review of the literature on Industry 4.0 and green supply chain practices. The use of a systematic literature review methodology and the inclusion of 75 relevant papers enhance the reliability and validity of the study's findings. The research questions are clearly stated and provide a useful framework for understanding the application of Industry 4.0 technologies to improve GSC practices. The paper effectively highlights the enabling technologies for Industry 4.0 and their potential impact on GSC practices, as well as the challenges of implementing these technologies in GSCs. The emphasis on identifying future research directions is particularly valuable. Overall, this is a valuable contribution to the literature on Industry 4.0 and GSC practices. Great job!
I have a few concerns that I would like to raise regarding the paper:
The visual presentation of the paper, including the layout, tables, and figures, is unattractive and of poor quality. Some of the figures are so unclear that it is impossible to read a single word, such as Figure 2. And there are two Figure 1!
The figures in the paper are not labeled with sufficient care. "Table 1" and "Table II" appear in the manuscript, this is the first time I have seen this.
Table 3 is a crucial element of the paper, but unfortunately, it is confusing in terms of both its content and layout. As a result, it is difficult to understand its intended meaning.
Author Response
Please, find attached the answer to all your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled as "Technologies associated with Industry 4.0 in green supply chains: A Systematic Literature Review" is a good paper on I4.0 literature. After an extensive research, paper provides directions for future research and with this respect, the paper contributes by showing the lack of literature on analysing the I4.0 espeially with primary data.
Following must be addressed by authors and paper should be revised with these respects.
1)In terms of recent research, research from 2023 is non existent in the literature of the paper.
2) Future directions for researchers is a very good section. Could you extend it to a discussion section just before conclusion and by referencing to it, write a shortened version in the conclusion?
3) Similarity yielded 19%. It might be an acceptable ratio. Authors could attend it by reducing it. Most importantly, the title sentence is colored fully. Is the paper from first author's thesis research or a working paper of the authors? I did not evaluate in detail however, if the results are replicated here or if the paper is part of research from thesis as I suspected, a note should be added to the paper's first page about it that this is generalized version of the research from authors' thesis or project.
4)Limitations are noted and discussed well. It is centered on two strains. The first is stated as:
"First, a big amount of relevant papers 641
about the challenges of implementing Industry 4.0 enabling technologies were not iden- 642
tified in the initial search; thus, we have added three papers to enrich that search. How- 643
ever, other relevant papers on this topic may have been overlooked."
In a recent paper published 2023, authors discussed this limitation and due to unavailability of data for I4.0, they suggested AI innovations and ICT innovations dataset in addition to taking ICT exports, R&D and bitcoin type technologies as proxies for I4.0. The first two datasets are on AI and ICT patents. I suggest evaluating this paper and if exists similar papers, adding them to the literature and this paper might provide a type of way to deal with unavailability of data about I4.0.
Mentioned paper is,
Nexus between Industry 4.0 and environmental sustainability: A Fourier panel bootstrap cointegration and causality analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 386, 2023.
Also, please note that as you noted in the abstract, current studies focus largely on benefits of implementing Industry 4.0, however, the paper above provides a critique to I4.0 in terms of negative environmental effects of I4.0. It's literature also highlights additional critiques from the literature due to inclusion of cryptocurrency tech in terms of I.4.0, significant amount of pollution is generated so far for the environment. Yes, there are suggestions for tech such as IoT or on local production with 3d type printers of some goods to avoid transportation so that I4 will reduce pollution, it did not such things so far and these are too optimistic for recent future. Maybe in the far future.
5) Minor formating issues and very minor grammar issues are noted which could be easily corrected in the last version. I suggest to use a grammar check software.
Lastly, the final remark below is not a critique but a suggestion / invitation:
There is a special issue in Sustainability and the paper just fits to the specifications of this special issue. Would authors consider it to be transfered to this special issue? I am just asking and I do not know if this is a possibility.
The special issue is entitled as ""Environmental and Economic Sustainability in the Context of Industry 4.0"
with the link. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/578E5M0R54
I will also ask this matter to the handling editor. I leave it to the evaluations of authors and to the editor.
Very minor Grammar corrections are needed.
Author Response
Please, find attached the answer to all your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article, which is a literature review in the field of used technologies related to Industry 4.0 in green supply chains, needs improvement.
First of all, the authors should review the literature again, as it was performed unreliably.
References include 158 literature items, however, there are repetitions. The following are examples:
121. P. Morella, M. P. Lambán, J. Royo, J. C. Sánchez, and L. del C. Ng Corrales, “Development of a New Green Indicator and Its Implementation in a Cyber–Physical System for a Green Supply Chain,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 20, p. 8629, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12208629.
129. P. Morella, M. P. Lambán, J. Royo, J. C. Sánchez, and L. C. N. Corrales, “Development of a new green indicator and its implementation in a cyber–physical system for a green supply chain,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 20, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12208629.
134. F. Odważny, D. Wojtkowiak, P. Cyplik, and M. Adamczak, “Smart Factory within sustainable development and green growth concepts,” LogForum, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 467–477, 2018, doi: 10.17270/J.LOG.2018.301.
149. F. Odważny, D. Wojtkowiak, P. Cyplik, M. A.- LogForum, and undefined 2018, “Smart factory within sustainable development and green growth concepts,” yadda.icm.edu.pl, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 467–477, 2018, doi: 10.17270/J.LOG.2018.301.
135. L. Varela, A. Araújo, P. Ávila, H. Castro, and G. Putnik, “Evaluation of the Relation between Lean Manufacturing, Industry 4.0, and Sustainability,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 1439, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11051439.
147. L. Varela, A. Araújo, P. Ávila, H. Castro, G. P.- Sustainability, and undefined 2019, “Evaluation of the relation between lean manufacturing, industry 4.0, and sustainability,” mdpi.com, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11051439.
16. B. Gajdzik, S. Grabowska, S. Saniuk, and T. Wieczorek, “Sustainable Development and Industry 4.0: A Bibliometric Analysis Identifying Key Scientific Problems of the Sustainable Industry 4.0,” Energies (Basel), vol. 13, no. 16, p. 4254, Aug. 2020, doi: 716 10.3390/en13164254.
119. B. zena Gajdzik, S. Grabowska, S. Saniuk, and T. Wieczorek, “Sustainable Development and Industry 4.0: A Bibliometric Analysis Identifying Key Scientific Problems of the Sustainable Industry 4.0,” Energies 2020, Vol. 13, Page 4254, vol. 13, no. 16, 964 p. 4254, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.3390/EN13164254.
98. J. Vrchota, M. Pech, L. Rolínek, and J. Bednář, “Sustainability outcomes of green processes in relation to industry 4.0 in manufacturing: Systematic review,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 15. MDPI AG, 2020. doi: 10.3390/su12155968.
130. J. Vrchota, M. Pech, L. Rolínek, and J. Bednář, “Sustainability Outcomes of Green Processes in Relation to Industry 4.0 in Manufacturing: Systematic Review,” Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12, Page 5968, vol. 12, no. 15, p. 5968, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.3390/SU12155968.
136. S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran, and N. C. Dhone, “Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing practices for sustainable organisational performance in Indian manufacturing companies,” Int J Prod Res, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1319–1337, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1630772.
148. S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran, and N. C. Dhone, “Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing practices for sustainable organisational performance in Indian manufacturing companies,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1319–1337, 1040 Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1630772.
Line 204 - “… this study combined a bibliometric overview of the most relevant literature …” - the most relevant literature - i.e. what kind?
Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited. - incorrect signature of Table 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram – should be Figure 2. Moreover, the font size in this figure should be increased, because it is unreadable.
Incorrect drawing numbering starting from Figure 2.
Section 4. Literature review analysis lines 303-306 – “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.” – this text should be deleted.
Table II. Papers distribution by Industry 4.0 technologies – table numbering should be unified.
Author Response
Please, find attached the answer to all your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The main purpose of the paper is to study the existing Industry 4.0 technologies to develop a Green Supply Chains based on systemic literature review published from last 15 years (2007-2022) using Web of Science and Scopus as a databases. Authors utilized standard SLR approach with additional conceptual analysis. Based of 75 selected publications they conducted deeper qualitative analysis in relation to three research questions on particular Industry 4.0 technologies and different GSC aspects.
Despite the main aim of the research has been achieved, its theoretical contribution is very low. In my opinion in order to improve originality as well as scientific contribution of the paper it is necessary to supplement the standard SLR quantitative and qualitative analyses with empirical verification (e.g. case study in real environment as it was indicated in recommendations for further research within the last part of the paper, lines 652-653).
The paper is not free from editorial errors, like wrong numbering of pages (from page 15 to the end of the text).
Author Response
Please, find attached the answer to all your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript does not show any significant signs of revision and I recommend rejecting it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer1,
Last revision you suggested formatting and figure changes that have been considered. Therefore, we don't understand your comment now. Please, if you have more suggestions, please let us now.
Best Regards
Paula Morella
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not correct the article in accordance with the comments.
There are still repetitions in the references. For example, one of at least eight occurring:
1. D. L. M. Nascimento et al., “Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context: A business model proposal,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 30, no. 3. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., pp. 607–627, Apr. 15, 2019. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071.
93. D. L. M. Nascimento et al., “Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context: A business model proposal,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 607– 627, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071/FULL/PDF.
Therefore, the question arises about the reliability of the conducted research - 75 articles were analyzed - are you sure?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We have reviewed the references. It was a problem with the reference editor, not with our study. Please, find attached the document with our analysis in order to see that we have reviewed this 75 papers.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion the contribution of the study to the supply chain management concept is still very low but if the Authors as well as Editors believe that the standard systemic literature review with some conceptual analyses without any empirical verification has enough originality and logical coherence the paper can be published. Unfortunately, I am afraid that in the near future this kind of SLR papers can be succesfully prepared by standard AI tools.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4,
I see your point, but in my opinion it is not a problem about our work on this research but a common problem due to IA capacities. Systematic Literature Review is a type of research that nowadays is well considered, and adding a case study could be the work for other paper.
Kins Regards
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The presentation of Table 3 is still very confusing, and it's hard to say what kind of sense the overall paper makes. But the overall quality is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have tried to clarify table 3 as much as possible, but it is difficult to do better due to the format required by the journal. If you have any other suggestions, we will be happy to implement them.
Thank you.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the comments and revised the paper as recommended.
