Expanding Fundamental Boundaries between Resilience and Survivability in Systems Engineering: A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The manuscript is on an interesting topic analysing survivability and resilience. The authors have done a comprehensive literature survey with respect to the topic in question. These are the comments regarding the work.

1)    What is the purpose of this paper? It is not very clear nor is the type of paper.

2)    Introduction: The authors can make the introduction with a clear may be with an example usecase. The novelty of the paper claimed in the lines 75 -80 is not addressed in detail.

3)    The introduction section also lacks the overview of the sections as it is quite a long paper.

4)    The sections do not follow make the transitions to next section smoothly. For example, Section 2 talks about background on Survivability and Resilience but Section 3 starts with how the publications were retrieved. The authors need to explain the need for the publications to be retrieved in the first place. Also, the section headings need to be thought of carefully. For example,

"Industrial applications revolving survivability and main takeaways"

What are the main takeaways in this subsection? It is not explained

5)    Research Methodology: Is this section about the literature review? what is the purpose of retrieving the publication? Need to explain why in addition to how

6)    Results: Results of what? May be a better way would be have a split the methodology section into why and how but have a different section about the experiment you performed.

7)    What is the significance of Figure 3? And why is it necessary to see the distribution of references according to state in Figure 7. These results could be shortened to make the paper succinct.

8)    Some sections are short and whereas some are quite long. Try to balance the length of the sections.

9)    The mathematical equations are not introduced, and symbols are not defined or defined later. Hence it is not clear to the reader what those equations mean.

10) Figure 9 should be page 20 as it is reference on line 732.

In summary, although there is some good work done, the paper need refining. Also, the authors should focus on what the paper is trying to achieve. The conclusion section does not cover all the claims on the lines 75-80

 

Author Response

Please find notes in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading this research and suspect that many, especially in the domain of critical infrastructures and disaster management will as well. However, the authors need to frame (i) why they focus on a few “ilities” (ii) some graphics are not easy to read, and (iii) the manuscript could do without the system of systems thinking section. It appears to be out of place. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find notes in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the author's response. The change of title made sense to show what the paper was about.