A Keyword, Taxonomy and Cartographic Research Review of Sustainability Concepts for Production Scheduling in Manufacturing Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The main problem in this article is the quality of the presentation on Fig(s) which is too low and must to be improved.

2. The authors have to change the main structure of the paper into (5-6) main parts. The current version doesn't have a clear structure. all of the literature comes into introduction part.

3. The literature review used in introduction should be mixed with the second section which is theoretical background.

4. In the section three (Methodology) you have to report data collection and data processing.

5. You need to have a sub-section to describe all of the key terms.

6.Scetion (6. Conclusion) is too short and you have to reference to the previous works and compare your results with the previous researches in the field.

 

Author Response

First, we thank you for the suggestions you have given us with the intention - we believe - of improving our document. In improving the article, we have revised the English and the parts that have been changed or added have been left in blue to make it easier to understand what we have done.

Responding promptly to your comments and those of the other reviewers, we can say that:

1. We have changed the title by linking it more closely to the content of the paper. From the title it is now immediately clear what the purpose of the article is.
2. We tried to improve the quality of the images (the definition and detail of the images and their clarity).
3. The Abstract has been reorganised and partly rewritten as suggested.
4. We improved the structure of the paper as follows:
   1. The Introduction has been partly rewritten following suggestions and including the required bibliographical references.
   2. We have added a paragraph in the introduction in which the research questions we are trying to answer are included, explained, and commented on.
   3. The second section analyses in detail the specific literature on the approaches we have called “green scheduling” and how they have/could contribute to improving the sustainability of manufacturing companies.
   4. The third section “research methodologies” has been supplemented and improved based on your suggestions; in particular, a whole paragraph has been added showing the Scopus database search steps taken to arrive at the selection of papers.
   5. Section 4 has been completely rewritten.
   6. Section 5 - discussion of results - has been deepened and the results achieved better commented on.
   7. Conclusions were rewritten.
5. We added an initial table, inserted - for the reader’s convenience - immediately after the abstract, listing the main key terms used in the article. In doing so, we checked that acronyms were defined only once (the first time they were used).
6. We modified the keywords in the paper by indicating those we considered most significant for framing the purpose of the research.
7. Typos we made that did not reflect the styles of the paper and MDPI were checked and corrected.
8. Table 1 shows only an excerpt (as is better commented now in the text) of the most recent literature reviews on the topic. The purpose of table 1 is only to show that our approach is more comprehensive and complete than those found in the literature.
9. Table 2 has been removed and we have corrected the others so that the column headings are readable.
10. We have standardised all the styles of the bibliographical references to the style of the journal and MDPI

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the paper. At that time it requires significant improvements in order to be published in the scientific journal The title should correspond to the content of the article. I'm not sure what the authors want to point out, emphasize or prove. In the Introduction, "green scheduling problems in manufacturing" appears, but The text does not explain exactly what sustainability of this concept is about, whether the concepts are related, contradictory or contribute to sustainable development. The Summary lacks: a clearly defined purpose of the article, description of the research method, summary of results and conclusions, what is really new. There is no description in the Introduction: presentation of the current state of research on the research problem, identification of the research gap, presentation of the article objectives, description of the article structure, however this is a review. There is no separate description of the state of the art (literature review and research methods). Conclusion section lacks: summaries of the most important conclusions from the research, theoretical and practical implications of the research results, research restrictions, and directions for further work on the research problem . There is no clear research problem, aim and question that guides the research. Where are the authors input? Where is the methodology? According to the title it seems that there is an ambition to provide components of sustainable Also unclear what authors tried to explain. Therefore, I recommend the author resubmit the paper after conducting more analytical research. Thank you.

Author Response

First, we thank you for the suggestions you have given us with the intention - we believe - of improving our document. In improving the article, we have revised the English and the parts that have been changed or added have been left in blue to make it easier to understand what we have done.

Responding promptly to your comments and those of the other reviewers, we can say that:

1. We have changed the title by linking it more closely to the content of the paper. From the title it is now immediately clear what the purpose of the article is.
2. We tried to improve the quality of the images (the definition and detail of the images and their clarity).
3. The Abstract has been reorganised and partly rewritten as suggested.
4. We improved the structure of the paper as follows:
   1. The Introduction has been partly rewritten following suggestions and including the required bibliographical references.
   2. We have added a paragraph in the introduction in which the research questions we are trying to answer are included, explained, and commented on.
   3. The second section analyses in detail the specific literature on the approaches we have called “green scheduling” and how they have/could contribute to improving the sustainability of manufacturing companies.
   4. The third section “research methodologies” has been supplemented and improved based on your suggestions; in particular, a whole paragraph has been added showing the Scopus database search steps taken to arrive at the selection of papers.
   5. Section 4 has been completely rewritten.
   6. Section 5 - discussion of results - has been deepened and the results achieved better commented on.
   7. Conclusions were rewritten.
5. We added an initial table, inserted - for the reader’s convenience - immediately after the abstract, listing the main key terms used in the article. In doing so, we checked that acronyms were defined only once (the first time they were used).
6. We modified the keywords in the paper by indicating those we considered most significant for framing the purpose of the research.
7. Typos we made that did not reflect the styles of the paper and MDPI were checked and corrected.
8. Table 1 shows only an excerpt (as is better commented now in the text) of the most recent literature reviews on the topic. The purpose of table 1 is only to show that our approach is more comprehensive and complete than those found in the literature.
9. Table 2 has been removed and we have corrected the others so that the column headings are readable.
10. We have standardised all the styles of the bibliographical references to the style of the journal and MDPI

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear respected authors,

1.      Some sentences in the Abstract section need to be revised. In the second sentence, it is mentioned that there are “nine” items. These names should be named, which is not appropriate in this section, or the sentence should be rewritten in another way. In line 19, a full stop has been missed. The sentence in lines 26 to 28 should be rewritten.

2.      Generally, the keywords must be selected based on the importance and/or the repetition of the used phrases in the text. Considering this issue, the keyword of “Sustainable production”, is not appropriate, and “Literature review” is redundant.

3.      The first paragraph of the Introduction section should be supported by some references, especially those related to considering energy consumption as a Green Scheduling Problem. Besides, do not forget to use “GSPs” for “Green Scheduling Problems” in line 39.

4.      In line 44 [1] does not need to be in the parenthesis, like ([1]). In this paragraph, it is suggested to mention goal 7 in a complete sentence.

5.      The contents of lines 46 to 52 are exactly a repetition of the sentences mentioned in lines 14 to 19.

6.      In line 73 the referencing should be corrected as [8,9], and in line 76 the reference should be only mentioned as [10]. In the latter case, the name of the author should not be written. Please check the whole text considering this issue.

7.      In Table 1 only seven articles have been classified. It seems this table is not enough for the aim that has been provided.

8.      In line 85, “They” has been referenced to whom in the sentence“Table 1. They have been analysed …..”?

9.      Figures have very low qualities, look like just copy-paste from somewhere.

10.  The division of the content of the manuscript in the Introduction and Theoretical background is not clear.

11.  Table 2 is not a table appropriate to be used in a scientific article.  

12.  After defining an Acronym/Abbreviation, it should be used instead of the whole phrase everywhere in the text and there is no need to define it repeatedly. For instance, DHFSP has been defined in line 175, and again in line 193.  The other Abbreviations/Acronyms used in the text must be checked considering this point of view.

13.  In the case of defining and using a high number of Acronyms/Abbreviations, it is suggested to make a list of nomenclatures before the Introduction section.

14.  What are the headlines of the columns in Table 3?!

 

15.  By just looking at the first 10 references in the references list, it is found that different styles of referencing have been used that must be unified. 

Author Response

First, we thank you for the suggestions you have given us with the intention - we believe - of improving our document. In improving the article, we have revised the English and the parts that have been changed or added have been left in blue to make it easier to understand what we have done.

Responding promptly to your comments and those of the other reviewers, we can say that:

1. We have changed the title by linking it more closely to the content of the paper. From the title it is now immediately clear what the purpose of the article is.
2. We tried to improve the quality of the images (the definition and detail of the images and their clarity).
3. The Abstract has been reorganised and partly rewritten as suggested.
4. We improved the structure of the paper as follows:
   1. The Introduction has been partly rewritten following suggestions and including the required bibliographical references.
   2. We have added a paragraph in the introduction in which the research questions we are trying to answer are included, explained, and commented on.
   3. The second section analyses in detail the specific literature on the approaches we have called “green scheduling” and how they have/could contribute to improving the sustainability of manufacturing companies.
   4. The third section “research methodologies” has been supplemented and improved based on your suggestions; in particular, a whole paragraph has been added showing the Scopus database search steps taken to arrive at the selection of papers.
   5. Section 4 has been completely rewritten.
   6. Section 5 - discussion of results - has been deepened and the results achieved better commented on.
   7. Conclusions were rewritten.
5. We added an initial table, inserted - for the reader’s convenience - immediately after the abstract, listing the main key terms used in the article. In doing so, we checked that acronyms were defined only once (the first time they were used).
6. We modified the keywords in the paper by indicating those we considered most significant for framing the purpose of the research.
7. Typos we made that did not reflect the styles of the paper and MDPI were checked and corrected.
8. Table 1 shows only an excerpt (as is better commented now in the text) of the most recent literature reviews on the topic. The purpose of table 1 is only to show that our approach is more comprehensive and complete than those found in the literature.
9. Table 2 has been removed and we have corrected the others so that the column headings are readable.
10. We have standardised all the styles of the bibliographical references to the style of the journal and MDPI

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the corrections made

Author Response

Authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear respected authors,

1.      The format of Table 1 needs to be revised. In addition, its headline existed at the end of the Introduction section.

2.      Still the quality of Figure 1 is very low.

Author Response

1 - We fixed the format of Table 1 by checking that the title does not go to another page
2 - We improved the quality of Figure 1

 

Authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments.