A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study
, Enes Gunaltili 2, Selcuk Ekici 3,4,*, Alper Dalkiran 5, Ozgur Balli 6 and Tahir Hikmet Karakoc 1,7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Authors have improved the paper according remarks.
It's ok.
Author Response
R2_Reviewers' comments and corresponding answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I thank the authors for improving their paper based on my comments. Recommend acceptance in present version.
English is fine.
Author Response
R2_Reviewers' comments and corresponding answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have improved the paper and systematically reviewed the case study. The authors have also included a lot of new references in this paper and reviewed them appropriately. Therefore, this paper marginally achieves the contribution. I suggest accepting this paper. Thanks.
Minor amendment required.
Author Response
R2_Reviewers' comments and corresponding answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
1.Is this a revised manuscript? Why are there so many red font changes?
2.The paper mainly focuses on summarizing existing literature, and there isn't enough of the author's original content. Additionally, if this is supposed to be a comprehensive review paper, it needs more references.
3.The text refers to data, such as the number of sheets of paper used, but lacks specific details about the source or method of data collection. It should provide information on how the data was collected and its reliability.
4.Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making the text harder to follow. Consider breaking down long sentences for better readability.
5.The text sometimes lacks smooth transitions between paragraphs and ideas. Ensure that the content flows logically from one point to the next.
6.The text uses acronyms like "IATA" and "EASA" without initially defining them. The first instance of an acronym should be spelled out with the acronym in parentheses.
7.There are sweeping statements like "aviation is the least environmentally damaging" that may need to be qualified. It's important to provide context and specify the scope of such statements.
8.When presenting data (e.g., the number of sheets of paper used), consider providing an analysis or interpretation of the data. Why is this data significant, and what conclusions can be drawn from it?
9.The section on regulatory requirements mentions challenges but doesn't detail them. Include specific examples or descriptions of the regulatory hurdles faced by the aviation industry.
10.The section mentioning "limitations and future works" could be expanded to include more specific recommendations for future research or potential areas of improvement in paperless aviation practices.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
R2_Reviewers' comments and corresponding answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors presented "A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study" is a good work. However, the paper is not in good quality for acceptance. These points are needed to be addressed before publication.
Major Comments:
- The introduction could be strengthened by providing more background on the environmental impact of paper usage in aviation and clearly stating the purpose and scope of the study. The current introduction lacks focus.
- The methods section is missing. The paper would benefit from including details on the data collection, analysis approach, variables examined, etc. This is needed to evaluate the rigor of the study.
- The case study presented focuses on a single maintenance organization. Expanding the analysis to include multiple organizations would improve generalizability of findings.
- More details are needed on the data security, regulatory compliance, and other challenges faced when transitioning paperless systems in the highly regulated aviation industry.
- The conclusion does not sufficiently summarize key findings and implications from the analysis. The conclusion should directly connect back to the study objectives.
Minor Comments:
- Proofread to fix minor grammar and style issues throughout.
- Figure quality could be improved - some figures are blurry.
- References are formatted inconsistently. Standardize the reference format.
- Expand the abbreviations/acronyms list to ensure clarity.
- Consider adding subsection headings in the background to improve flow and readability.
Author Response
R2_Reviewers' comments and corresponding answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Accept in present form
Minor editing of English language required
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors addressed all the comments successfully.
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 paper is not technical at all. Instead, it is a review article by referring to a case study. I suggest the authors to revise the manuscript. It would be better if this paper could be converted into a systematic review form. Suppose the references in a review article should be updated. Am surprised that this paper did not include any references in 2023.
Minor
Author Response
Reviewers' Comments & Corresponding Answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The text of the paper is interesting but has some flaws need to be adressed:
-The text contains some redundancy and repetition of ideas, such as repeatedly emphasizing the environmental benefits of going paperless. Streamlining and condensing these points could enhance clarity.
-The text focuses primarily on the benefits of going paperless but lacks a balanced discussion of potential challenges and drawbacks. Addressing both sides of the argument would provide a more comprehensive view.
-The text could benefit from clearer organization and structure. Consider using subheadings to break down content into more digestible sections, especially when discussing different aspects of paperless operations.
-The text does not provide sufficient detail on the research methodology used in the study. Readers would benefit from information on data collection methods, participant selection, and data analysis techniques.
-Both parts of the text could benefit from further proofreading and editing to eliminate grammatical errors and improve sentence structure for clarity and readability.
The english level should be improved.
Author Response
Reviewers' Comments & Corresponding Answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper seems to be interesting. However, let me see how the authors will improved based on the following comments in order to reconsider it again:
1- The paper title is too long. Suggesting this one:
"A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study"
2- The contribution of the paper is not clear enough, especially, when we know that many researchers have proved the effectiveness of paperless maintenance so what is the novel contribution in the present paper? There will be high reservation on the paper if the contribution is not clearly explained.
3- At the end of literature review, identify the research gap and summarize the review in a table that highlight the major research achievement including the present paper and what is the scientific merit that drives the author to write and publish the paper.
4- The criteria used for comparison needs further explanation to reach informed conclusions about the two methods of maintenance. Are both methods manufacturable on the global scale?
English is fine.
Author Response
Reviewers' Comments & Corresponding Answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Overall, this paper selected a good topic for aviation industry, while limited unque work has been done, making this work less valuable for academic and industry readers. As a scientific paper, it is not allowed to apply literature review as the core method to conduct this quantitative analysis. As a review paper, this work is lack of own summary for the previous major publications in this field. Therefore, I recommend a rejection for this paper.
As a paper focusing on evaluating environmental implications of paper usage, please specify quantitative evidence of carbon footprint, resource comsumption and paper production and disposal. A well-planned transition to a paperless system can lead to cost savings, increased efficiency, and reduced environmental impact. The average work requires careful consideration of all relevant factors and a commitment to managing the change effectively.
Other comments:
1. Fig 2 and 3 are lack of references;
2. Fig. 5~8 can be incorporated into one figure.
Author Response
Reviewers' Comments & Corresponding Answers
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the review of our manuscript entitled: “A Comparative Study between Paper and Paperless Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study”.
We sincerely appreciate all the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the article. Our responses to the Reviewers’ comments are described below in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes, suggested by the Reviewers, have been introduced to the manuscript (highlighted within the document).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
