Industry 5.0: Tracking Scientific Activity on the Most Influential Industries, Associated Topics, and Future Research Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Now I am happy with the corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for submitting to Sustainability journal. I have some further suggestions:

Abstract: good

Introduction: I would suggest to clearly show, which author wrote what, regarding the references. I will suggest not "nesting" the references e.g. [26, 52-54], see p. 2, lines: 52-56. or line 476.

RQ4: needs to be rewritten - please omit little-explored 

Literature review: sufficient

Methodology: Fig. 2 - not well visible - please save your Figures in meta version in the pdf.

Results: well explained

Conclusions: sufficiently elaborated. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript focuses on an interesting topic relate to the Industry 5.0. However, there are some feedbacks needs to be improved.

1) The core question is what is the core idea and innovation of this manuscript.

2) Although it can be seen that the authors have made great efforts, the content of the article seems to be a simple content combing based on literature analysis, but there is no core point of view or important enlightenment formed from it. The content of the manuscript seems to be a simple content combing based on bibliometric approach, but no core point of view or important insights has been formed from it. The authors did not put forward the key content such as the concept, technical framework, and application scenarios of Industry 5.0 based on their own understanding, nor did they analyze in detail the improvement of Industry 5.0 to Industry 4.0. The absence of these key contents will prevent readers from judging whether the authors have a unique understanding of Industry 5.0.

3) In subsection 3.2, I wonder why the four industries are analyzed. Further, the literature evidence provided might not support these analyses. For example, in the analysis part related to the Electronic, only a blockchain-related paper provided fail to hold the view that the Electronic is the most influential sector in industry 5.0. This problem also occurs in subsections of 3.3 and 3.4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors

I just had the chance to read your work. I think the topic is interesting and timely. To help you improve your paper, I listed a few suggestions below.

 

1.Introduction

The Introduction section is well written; however, justification on why a Scientometric Analysis (bibliometric study) is an appropriate method for this topic would be necessary. Finally, the envisioned contributions should be briefly stated at the end of this section. (Line 82)

 

2.Methodology

The research question(s) could be better strengthened in the Research Method section. The words used in the search strings need more justification. More explanation of the screening process is required.

 

3.Results and Discussions

Please check the visibility of the Figures; for example, the visibility of Figures 4 and 6 requires modification.

Authors may include a figure that summarises the content of the section and facilitates understanding. Furthermore, before the Conclusions, the authors could provide a well-elaborated section about the “Implications” of this paper.

 

4.Limitations

The limitations of this work need explanation.

 

5.Conclusions

The contributions require further explanation. 

 

 

Kind Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks to the authors for their effort on modifying this manuscript. However, I think this manuscript still needs to be greatly improved.

I think the important point of interest for the readers is how Industry 5.0 breaks through Industry 4.0, rather than just focusing on the extension of industry 5.0. Therefore, I believe that only after identifying the concept of industry 5.0, clarifying the transformative framework of 5.0 and defining the breakthrough path of industry 5.0 to industry 4.0, should the extension of industry 5.0 be discussed from the aspects of influencing industries and research topics. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the reader to get deep inspiration from this manuscript. Therefore, I still think the article needs to be revised accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I think the responses from the authors did not properly address my concerns and the authors did not make reasonable changes. These should be mentioned in the introduction and review section, not in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have reponsed my concerns well, so I think it is Okey to accept this manuscript.

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 article presents a bibliometric literature review on Industry 5.0.  Unlike the 12 other literature reviews on the same topic identified by the authors, this review is very general and does not answer any specific research question.  The review of the texts is simply based on a simple classification without any analysis.  Thus, the authors only identify the most and least discussed themes.  In this sense, this classification does not provide any tangible leads for the researchers nor any explanation of the results obtained.   The analysis is thus limited to simply counting the number of keyword appearances per article.  The scientific contribution of such an approach is therefore marginal.  Moreover, no results are discussed and compared with those obtained by the 12 other literature reviews identified in the introduction.

Also, the choice of themes is not clearly explained in the text and there are inconsistencies in the theme selection (we cannot have an Industry 5.0 theme when we only analyze texts on Industry 5.0!!!).  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

[STRENGTH]

Your manuscript is among the first few earliest papers analyzing Industry 5.0 through bibliometric analysis.

 [WEAKNESSESS]

The study looks too shallow with limited RQs and insufficient detailed in bibliometric analysis and its discussion on impact the your study.

 [FORMATTING]

The citation format should not be in superscript.

 [ABSTRACT]

Add one sentence to hook the reader about the background of your topic. Also highlight the research gap and significance of your bibliometric analysis. Then you may start with the paper objectives. However, your first sentence is too long.

 [INTRODUCTION]

 Three RQs is too little. Add another 3-4 RQs:

 Example:

 - How do the research priorities for industry 5.0 vary across different countries and regions?

 - What are the most common research methods used in the literature on industry 5.0, and how have these methods evolved over time?

 - How do the findings from studies on industry 5.0 translate into practice, and how can research on industry 5.0 be used to inform policy and decision-making in the industry?

 [LITERATURE REVIEW]

 Since you are submitting your paper to a journal titled Sustainability, I would strongly suggest that you add the second section, called "Background or Literature Review." In this section, discuss thoroughly how IR 5.0 connects to environmental sustainability and social sustainability. Explore how these issues are addressed in the literature on industry 5.0. The LR could also be extended to consider the sustainability implications of industry 5.0 more broadly. This includes the environmental and social impacts of new IR 5.0 practices.

 [RESULTS]

 Conduct another bibliometric analysis, such as:

- Citation and H-Index Analysis

- Co-Authorship Analysis

- Institute Co-Authorship Analysis

- Highly Cited MBD-Related Publications

- Reference Co-Citation Analysis

- Journal Co-Citation Analysis

[DISCUSSIONS]

- Limitation - add more details.

- Add theoretical and practical implications sub sections.

[GENERAL TIPS]

You cited 170 papers. But you don't have to cite all.

The best way to polish your paper is by studying this top 10 bibliometric analysis articles published by Sustainability journal. Adapt and adopt the way they presented the bibliometric analysis:

1. A bibliometric analysis and visualization of medical big data research (267 citations as of 30 December 2022)

2. Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of green innovation (115)

3. Tourism research on sustainability: A bibliometric analysis (112)

4. Bibliometric analysis on smart cities research (106)

5. A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development, 1998-2018 (99)

6. Ten years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A bibliometric overview (96)

7. A bibliometric analysis of covid-19 across science and social science research landscape (78)

8. Impact of industry 4.0 on sustainability-bibliometric literature review (74)

9. Tourism and sustainability: A bibliometric and visualization analysis (73)

10. Sustainable tourism in the open innovation realm: A bibliometric analysis (70)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

abstract:

- I would suggest to rewrite the abstract, especially the part "Scopus database, to know 1) the 14 main information, which includes the manuscript record by year, country, subject area, and type of 15 document, 2) the most studied topics with the variable in question and 3) the least studied topics to 16 propose a future research agenda." - it would be valuable to expose the methodological approach

- also results within the abstract are just "listed" themes or topics, without in-depth elaboration on the added value

Introduction:

- it is good that writing goes from general to specific, sufficiently representing the topic

- however, at the second part of introduction (p. 2 line 56 on) it is not fully clear why authors explained an elaborated twelve review studies - introduction should also give an implications of the added value for this study, which has not been sufficiently perceived. It is not appropriate for the introduction to list twelve review papers and explaining them - authors need to bring this part to a higher level

- the research questions are not actually a research questions. Authors need to rewrite them. It is better to have 1 research question, and a good one than more. These research questions are very simple and appropriate for a student seminar work not for a serious research writing

- Methodology

- not sufficiently elaborated. More detailed steps are need. Also, another elaboration on tools used is need - why a specific tool has been used in your research and what data does it bring - e.g. why did you use excel, for example

- another elaboration is needed why only a Scopus database has been used? In Scopus database we can find journals without impact factor, and journals which review processes are less robust or rigorous - why you are including such journals?

Results and discussion

- from the page 4 till 7 I cannot perceive the added value - there is basically no discussion at all just listing and counting of documents from various perspective (time, country, etc.)

Conclusions

- very scarcely written, again authors in the conclusions answered RQ from the introduction section, which were actually not RQ

- this part needs to be fully rewritten in accordance with the entire manuscript

- I cannot perceive an added value from the research perspective, as papers were only extracted from the Scopus, put into various software tools (e.g. VOSviewer), counted and listed - in depth elaborations are needed with strong arguments and previous research.

There were many excellent bibliometric studies published from different topics, which could serve as an overview on how the bibliometric study should be prepared, written and elaborated. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As stated in my previous report, this paper falls short of being a usefull literature review paper for researchers.  The authors limit their work to count occurrences of keywords to determine 'future research domains'.    There is no analysis nor explanation of the numbers obtained.  In fact, this paper gives even less information than the previous 12 literature papers that the authors identified in the introduction.  The identified domains for research are not explained nor compared with the findings presented in the previous literature reviews.

There is also a major flaw in their research protocol.  As the authors themselves stated in the introduction, the term 'Industry 5.0' is not yet a mature term (fairly new) and its definition varies quite a lot from one author to another. As this term does not encompass a single method or technology, different 'terms' may be used by researchers to describe different subject areas included in the overall concept of Industry 5.0 (for example, human-centered Industry 4.0).   Consequently, industry 5.0 may be used or not in the title of a paper.  When conducting a systematic literature review in that context, limiting the paper selection process to papers containing 'Industry 5.0' in their titles does not make any sense and creates a major bias.  As you will see in most well-cited literature review papers, the search must absolutely search for the intended concepts/keywords (Industry 5.0 in this paper) in the Title, Abstract and Keywords or add all potential synonyms to ensure full coverage of the literature.  To demonstrate the impact of such a simple and incomplete query, I did a quick query in IEEE explore.  My query returned 53 papers with 'Industry 5.0' in the titles but 748 papers when the query is extended in the abstract and keywords.  Obviously, some of these papers must be eliminated (if they do not present a specific Industry 5.0 case or practice, but most of them look relevant).  This is why there is always an 'exclusion step' in a systematic literature review.     As such, the literature review is incomplete, and all of its findings are biased and based on partial evaluation of the existing literature on Industry 5.0.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please rewrite section 1.1. Literature review: Industry 5.0, environmental and social Sustainability.

Line 91-149: You started each paragraph with author's names. What you did was an annotated bibliography where you analyzed sources separately. What you should do is actually a literature review where you establish a relationship among the sources. So start your paragraph with the issues/themes and not with author names. Under one paragraph, you may have more than one citations.

Please summarize your conclusions section. It should be around 250-300 words in 1-2 paragraph. The second paragraph is for future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

- introduction - there are too many research questions which should to be rethink again (RQ4, RQ5)

- regarding the introduction part (literature review) - no improvements were made, just differently written summaries of the papers - introduction needs to be rewritten 

- p. 6, lines 221 - 227 it is not clear, you cannot make a reference, using over 20 references and "nesting" them

- conclusions: the last paragraph is a wishful thinking, it should be rewritten in a way - what is your actual contribution, why did you carried out your research - conclusions needs to be rewritten 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors did not take into account my comments.  Their protocol is still wrong and their analysis is based on a minimal subset of the litterature on Industry 5.0. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx