Theoretical Review of Research to Date on Competences 4.0—What Do We Know about Competences in Industry 4.0? A Status Quo Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors’ efforts into this research.

-        The information is easy to navigate, and the graphic structure of the paper allows readers to analyze the concepts approached, providing an interesting insight of the topic.

-        The paper is written according to academic standards, using proper language and scientific style.

-        The literature review provides a good background of the topic.

To enhance the quality of the study, it would be wise to pay attention to the following issues:

1.     Authors should include and detail the Methodology section of the paper and highlight how the results impact the domain and the interested scholars.

2.     The research presented in the study has been carried out using Scopus database, however, the justification of this choice instead of other major database is absent. In this direction, authors are advised to study and cite updated works such as below:

Mapping Knowledge Area Analysis in E-Learning Systems Based on Cloud Computing. Electronics 2023, 12, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12010062.

Bibliometric Analysis of the Green Deal Policies in the Food Chain. Amfiteatru Econ. 2022, 24, 410–428. DOI:10.24818/EA/2022/60/410.

3.     Authors need to develop a different section: ”Limitations and future research directions” in the revised draft.

4.     The reference list is not formatted according to the MDPI guidelines. Authors should correct this aspect.

 

Good luck with your revision!

 

The paper is written according to academic standards, using proper language and scientific style.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

In the attached file, you will find an  explanation of the modifications we have made based on your insightful comments. We have taken each point into consideration and made the necessary adjustments to improve the overall quality and clarity of paper.

Thank you and best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract is not so clear, please add:

what method you used to review, how many papers you have reviewed, period year of review. what is the significant finding of the review.

2. Citation format issue seems a lot. please revise

3. Where is your include and exclude criteria when you search in scopus, need to describe

4. You need to make a particular section about methodology of your review. I cannot see it clearly in your manuscript 

5. Please manage your writing, it doesnt seem like a scientific paper.

6. Finding should be discussed, not directly to conclude. please separate it.  

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Please find our improvements statement in attached file

With best regards

Joanna Kruszewska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with the review of competencies within Industry 4.0. The subject of the paper is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal, although this connection is not highlighted well enough. The paper's novelty and scientific contribution should be highlighted much better. I suggest the revision of the paper according to the following comments:

1.     The abstract does not highlight the paper's originality, novelty, main results, and conclusions. It also does not provide an adequate background of the problem discussed in the paper.

2.     The authors should highlight in the Introduction the paper's aim. In addition, there should be a short paragraph at the end of the Introduction indicating briefly what will be discussed in the following sections of the paper.

3.     The authors mention bridging some research gaps, but it is unclear what are the research gaps. I don’t see that they identified some research gaps.

4.     The authors state in the conclusion “The research question has also been answered positively…”, but they haven’t clearly stated any research question in the paper.

5.     Future research directions are rather weak. In this kind of paper future research directions should be one of the main results. What is the point of making a review and not providing directions for future research that would be interesting to the Journal readership?

6.     The authors should connect the paper more clearly with the main sustainability pillars (importance of Industry 4.0 to achieving environmental, economic, and social sustainability).

7.     I would expect to see much more cited references in a review paper.

8.     English writing should be revised. There are spelling, grammar, syntax, and style errors.

9.     There are certain technical issues:

a)     Section „Psycho-social competencies “ is not numbered correctly.

b)    Tables 2, 3, and 10 are not mentioned anywhere in the main text. All tables present in the paper must be mentioned somewhere in the main text and vice versa.

c)     The references are not quoted in the text as it is instructed in the template (and instructions for authors). They should be quoted using the numbers in square brackets in the order of their appearance.

d)    References in the reference list are not formatted according to the instructions for authors (provided template).

1.     English writing should be revised. There are spelling, grammar, syntax, and style errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Please find our improvement statement in attached file. 

With best regards

Joanna Kruszewska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Now improve properly

Author Response

Dear Editor 

Thank You very much for confirmation. 

With best regards

Joanna Kruszewska

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore, I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Editor

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for accepting our article and  extend our appreciation for your invaluable assistance in refining the article. 

With best regards

Joana Kruszewska