Artificial Intelligence for the Management of Servitization 5.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

This paper lacks substantive changes compared to the previous version. Although the authors have made some changes, it still does not meet the journal's requirements. In terms of content, this paper is more textbook-like, without a transparent research methodology and lacking the necessary scientific discussion. The references in the paper are confusingly numbered. All in all, this paper needs to be reworked to make it a better research review.

Author Response

please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Dear author,

You could improve more the conclusion (to summarize th e objective of your study). To join recommndation for future research.

Add Sources to: Figure 2. Servitization 5.0 in the context of Society 5.0

Figure 1. Stages in the development of servitization.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The author has made changes based on the comments and can be considered for acceptance.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explores the use of AI in Servitization 5.0 strategies and its role in sustainability in particular. Defines how to structure and support Servitization 5.0 and use the external business environment to support sustainability. This contributes to the interdisciplinary study of business marketing and operations servitization.

However, it would be better if the following details were refined.

1. The authors need to identify in the Introduction the "scientific problem" that this research is intended to address and the specific contribution to the development of the subject area.

2. The authors do not highlight in the "Literature review" section the differences with previous research and the importance of this study compared to existing research.

3. The format of the paper's references needs to be adapted to the journal's requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents a literature analysis, which is descriptive in nature. The article is more of a textbook style than a scientific style, a scientific discussion. There is no clear research methodology. The introduction and abstract do not even state the research methods. The opinion of the author of the article is not highlighted. It is necessary to present the methodology of the research, to correct the style, to systematize the scientific statements. The same literature analysis is presented in the conclusions. After all, the conclusions should present the regularities determined by the author when applying the synthesis method.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript discusses the integration of artificial intelligence, servitization and Industry 5.0, which is an interesting topic. Here are some comments:

1.There are some spelling errors in the manuscript, such as "Tnase" on 268 lines, "expaning" on 345 lines, and "risl" on 423 lines.

2. The paragraph (lines 312 -320) is repeated with the paragraph (lines 321 -329).

3.Artificial intelligence, servitization, and machine automation have had a revolutionary and lasting impact on manufacturing. Before establishing a grand narrative, the manuscript must collect sufficient and reliable data, propose research hypotheses, build models (preferably formalized models), evaluate and analyze the models, and draw credible and sound conclusions based on them.

There are some spelling errors in the manuscript, such as "Tnase" on 268 lines, "expaning" on 345 lines, and "risl" on 423 lines.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author please take consideration about our comments to improve well the quality of the manuscript in the form and in the content.

* In the form: The author must take the sustainability tempalte to prepare the paper:

e.i. (Kowalkowski et al., 2017) and to put  numerical number between brackets e.i. :  [ 1]

(Luoto et al., 2017)  : [ 2]

etc.

All cited articles must be added in the reference section at the end of the manuscript.

** In the body of the paper :

1. Abstarct : to refer to this methodology: ( Purpose, Aim, Method used, Findings, Original value, Implications)

2. Literature review and Hypotheses:

Add new recent cited articles (Hypotheses are mssed).

3. Findings : No empirical results done.

Author should transform the manuscript from Reseearch article to Review article. But it must more improved the literature section to be assessed again.

4. Limitation, future recommendation : Like any study this secction is relevent to add.

5. Conclusion: to reformulate again!!

6. Reference: Follow the template and make the brackets.

Good luck.

 

 

The paper needs professionnel language revision.

- Grammar

- Spelling

- Template model (Sustainability) to follow.