EREMI: An Innovative Interdisciplinary Approach for Higher Education in Resource Efficient Manufacturing Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is not a research paper but a description of the project. The format has to be completely changed - none of the sections presented in the paper comply with their original purpose in a research paper. 

 

The project is very good and the description is interestingin terms of information, however the contribution to scholarship is unclear in the present format 

Author Response

Good day,

Thank you for your valuable comments! Only by critical reviewing academic research is progressing and being kept on a good level. Thank you for supporting us in this way!

We have now significantly enriched the study by having performed, assessed and described an online quality feedback survey, performed within all project partner organisations - students and teachers.

Therefore we now have a complete picture of the project results and their assessment by the learners - by having evaluated their perception of the EREMI curriculum and overall novel workflows and approaches.

Therefore we have now kept the type of paper as an Article.

We have also improved the wording and significantly reduced any repetitions of contents from previous publications of ours and other scholars.

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This paper delivers a presentation of an Erasmus project which final purpose is a creation of an online based interactive teaching/learning platform, built in Moodle. This kind of projects are of an extremely important actuality , namely aiming an efficient professional education. However, without the possibility of presenting meaningful results, its purpose cannot be assessed.

The authors highlighted the strengths of this project, but any limitations have been identified?

Some remarks:

In subsection 3.3. the authors refer that questionnaires will be posed. What kind of ananlytics will be done? The expected results will be supported by some statitiscal analysis?

In the previous section, it is also mentioned that a file is attached but it is not available.

 

 

Author Response

Good day,

Thank you for your valuable comments! Only by critical reviewing academic research is progressing and being kept on a good level. Thank you for supporting us in this way!

We have now significantly enriched the study by having performed, assessed and described an online quality feedback survey, performed within all project partner organisations - students and teachers.

Therefore we now have a complete picture of the project results and their assessment by the learners - by having evaluated their perception of the EREMI curriculum and overall novel workflows and approaches.

Therefore we have now kept the type of paper as an Article.

We have also improved the wording and significantly reduced any repetitions of contents from previous publications of ours and other scholars.

Limitations of online learning have been now reflected - by the feedback of ours students, but also the relevant literature.

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors in the context of ERASMUS+KA203 have developed the so-called EREMI program, a life-long learning pillar for the tertiary education. Although interesting may be, I fear that the article needs significantly more work before it could be published.

First, the paper is not sufficiently well-theory informed. The bibliography is too short, thus the authors should include more papers in elaborating the basic notions under investigation.

Second, given the scope of the journal, the authors should place the whole discussion under the notion of sustainable development and its association with knowledge (human capital).  In this vein, a short discussion should be provided in the introduction and the following two articles should be included: (a) Meramveliotakis, G.  & Manioudis, M. (2021) "History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory" Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031468and (b) Dasgupta, P. The idea of sustainable development. Sustain Sci 2, 5–11 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0024-y

Third, the abstract should be re-written in a form of one concise paragraph mainly including the findings of the paper.

Fourth, introduction should be reduced considerably.

Fifth, after introduction a literature review section should be included.

Sixth, avoid the extensive use of bullet points.

Author Response

Good day,

Thank you for your valuable comments! Only by critical reviewing academic research is progressing and being kept on a good level. Thank you for supporting us in this way!

Our team has now significantly enriched the study by involving a solid literature overview on relevant projects and studies.

We have now significantly enriched the study by having performed, assessed and described an online quality feedback survey, performed within all project partner organisations - students and teachers.

Therefore we now have a complete picture of the project results and their assessment by the learners - by having evaluated their perception of the EREMI curriculum and overall novel workflows and approaches.

Therefore we have now kept the type of paper as an Article.

We have also improved the wording and significantly reduced any repetitions of contents from previous publications of ours and other scholars.

Limitations of online learning have been now reflected - by the feedback of ours students, but also the relevant literature.

Thank you!

Reviewer 4 Report

The article "EREMI: an innovative interdisciplinary approach for higher education in Resource Efficient Manufacturing Environments" explains the ERASMUS+ KA203-funded EREMI initiative. The document lacks scholarly support and appears to be a project description and project specifications. 

 

Furthermore, there is no scholarly logical progression in the project:

 

Introduction is required to describe the requirements, purpose, and goal. You should describe this section in 1.2. Overview of the relevant landscape: resource economy, industry, higher education, and beyond.

 

The section on literature review, which should demonstrate the literary background for your paper/project, is missing. 

 

The methodology does not describe scientific methods; rather, it determines project organizations and goals fulfillment.

 

The findings are good, but they are unrelated to earlier research in the area. 

 

There is no scientific basis for discussion and conclusion. You omit the entire section on theoretical implications.

 

My advice to authors is to rewrite this document in a scientific manner with a bibliography and resubmit it with the project outcomes.

 

Author Response

Good day,

Thank you for your valuable comments! Only by critical reviewing academic research is progressing and being kept on a good level. Thank you for supporting us in this way!

We have now significantly enriched the study by involving an in-depth review of relevant reference studies and project reports.

We have now significantly enriched the study by having performed, assessed and described an online quality feedback survey, performed within all project partner organisations - students and teachers.

Therefore we now have a complete picture of the project results and their assessment by the learners - by having evaluated their perception of the EREMI curriculum and overall novel workflows and approaches.

Therefore we have now kept the type of paper as an Article.

We have also improved the wording and significantly reduced any repetitions of contents from previous publications of ours and other scholars.

Limitations and shortcomings of such type of learning systems have been now reflected - by the feedback of ours students, but also the relevant literature.

Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has deserved a significant improvement.

However some remarks deserve your attention:

- Table 1. Importance of different questions in the syrvey 

- Satistical analysis should be improved with a "comparison" betewen UPB and others institutions by parametric or nonparametric tests in order to highlight  the implementation of EREMI.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments and critics.

In the final version now, you will see that we responded to and covered all of your comments, respectively integrated the necessary content according to your request.

In particular:

- Correction in Table 1 by adding additional statistics by institution
- We have also added explanatory text to Table 1 (each table and figure in the paper must be accompanied by explanatory text).
- We made a correction to the two images in Figure 2, replacing them with images with clearer text.
- We have added two new images to Figure 6 illustrating respondents' answers to questions 15 and 16 (and accompanying text before Figure 6).

Reviewer 3 Report

Unfortunately the authors did not engage with all of my previous comments.

see the following:

Second, given the scope of the journal, the authors should place the whole discussion under the notion of sustainable development and its association with knowledge (human capital).  In this vein, a short discussion should be provided in the introduction and the following two articles should be included: (a) Meramveliotakis, G.  & Manioudis, M. (2021) "History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory" Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031468and (b) Dasgupta, P. The idea of sustainable development. Sustain Sci 2, 5–11 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0024-y

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and critics!

In the final version now, you will see that we responded to and covered all of your comments, respectively integrated the necessary content according to your request.

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors significantly improved their manuscript according to the scientific background, however, please consult this literature to describe more in-depth Industry 4.0 paradigm:

 

1. Smart and Resilient Transformation of Manufacturing Firms (https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10122674)

 

2. UpSkill@Mgmt 4.0 – A Digital Tool for Competence Management: Conceptual Model and a Prototype (http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2022-4-315)

 

3. Industry 4.0 Enabling Technologies for Increasing Operational Flexibility in Final Assembly (http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2022-1-299)

 

Moreover, in the theoretical implications comment results from your project according to the previous literature.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and critics!

In the final version now, you will see that we responded to and covered all of your comments, respectively integrated the necessary content according to your request.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Ι strongly propose paper's publication. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors incorporated all suggestions, and the paper could be published in its present form.