A Traceability Platform for Monitoring Environmental and Social Sustainability in the Textile and Clothing Value Chain: Towards a Digital Passport for Textiles and Clothing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, this scientific manuscript should not be an advertisement for the project. A scientific manuscript must solve a scientific problem in the field. Therefore, I think the manuscript needs to be substantially corrected.

In the introduction, the production of clothing, which is very complex and has many different stages, is assigned at one level to the processes of weaving or knitting. This is incorrect, there should be a distinction between the development and production of materials and the development and production of clothing.

A detailed analysis of the scientific literature was carried out on the subject under consideration. However, the highlighted relevance and novelty of the research is missing.

What is the aim of a manuscript?

Research methodology is poorly described. A research methodology should not be a project workflow.

There are no conclusion. The description of the work process is not the conclusion of the work.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Follows a point-by-point response to your comments:

1 - First of all, this scientific manuscript should not be an advertisement for the project. A scientific manuscript must solve a scientific problem in the field. Therefore, I think the manuscript needs to be substantially corrected.

--> The manuscript was completely revised in order to orient its content towards the scientific results of the project, and removing content that appeared to be marketing.

 

2 - In the introduction, the production of clothing, which is very complex and has many different stages, is assigned at one level to the processes of weaving or knitting. This is incorrect, there should be a distinction between the development and production of materials and the development and production of clothing.

--> The scope of application of the proposed traceability platform is textile and clothing products. The text has been revised to make this fact clearer. The typical activities of a value chain in the textile and clothing sector, presented in the introduction, are examples of activities in this value chain, at a high level of abstraction, with interest for traceability. Each of these activities will itself be a process within the company that carries it out.

 

3 - A detailed analysis of the scientific literature was carried out on the subject under consideration. However, the highlighted relevance and novelty of the research is missing.

What is the aim of a manuscript?

--> At the end of section 3, after analyzing the scientific literature and the existing industrial tools, the main objective of the proposed platform was identified, highlighting the characteristics that distinguish the proposal presented from those existing in the literature.

 

4 - Research methodology is poorly described. A research methodology should not be a project workflow.

--> This section has been revised. The research methodology followed in the global project is now identified (Design Science Research). The overall project had three phases, with the results of the previous two phases being previously published. The purpose of this article, and its framing in the conclusion of the third phase of the research project, has been explained.

 

5 - There are no conclusion. The description of the work process is not the conclusion of the work.

--> The conclusion section has been revised. The contributions of the traceability platform resulting from this research have been highlighted. Several ideas for future work have been listed.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The introduction discusses the textile industry's demand for sustainability but should not overly emphasize common knowledge, lacking focus on the specific background related to Sustainability in the Textile and Clothing Value Chain, which is the main topic of this paper.

 

2.     The arrangement of Section 1.1 should be reconsidered.

 

3.     The significance and research gap of the study are not highlighted.

 

4.     It is suggested to introduce research closely related to the paper first in the introduction section, followed by a brief overview of the study.

 

5.     In the research methods, a more detailed description of the methods and the reasons for choosing these methods should be provided, especially focusing on how to establish a traceability platform for environmental, economical, and social sustainability indicators in the T&C value chain.

 

6.     The literature review only summarizes past research without making comparisons, which leads to the lack of significance in this study. It is recommended to identify shortcomings in previous research and explain the necessity of the current study.

 

7.     The results section should emphasize more on the reasons behind the design of the traceability system, not just documenting the system. Additionally, the paper lacks information on the trial-and-error process in the system design.

 

8.     The conclusion section should be more concise and to the point.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Follows a point-by-point response to your comments:

1. The introduction discusses the textile industry's demand for sustainability but should not overly emphasize common knowledge, lacking focus on the specific background related to Sustainability in the Textile and Clothing Value Chain, which is the main topic of this paper.

--> The manuscript has been completely revised in order to orient its content towards the scientific results of the project, and removing common knowledge content that appeared to be marketing.

 

2. The arrangement of Section 1.1 should be reconsidered.

--> Section 1.1 has been removed, and its contents presenting the article’s structure has been incorporated in the introduction section.

 

3. The significance and research gap of the study are not highlighted.

--> The research gap, and this manuscript’s objectives, are now highlighted after discussion of the related work.

 

4. It is suggested to introduce research closely related to the paper first in the introduction section, followed by a brief overview of the study.

--> In the introduction, facts are presented to motivate the study of related work and the need for a new traceability platform that answers the questions raised here. These questions arise as a conclusion to the discussion on the literature review.

 

5. In the research methods, a more detailed description of the methods and the reasons for choosing these methods should be provided, especially focusing on how to establish a traceability platform for environmental, economical, and social sustainability indicators in the T&C value chain.

--> The research methodology section has been revised. The research methodology followed in the global project is now identified (Design Science Research). The overall project had three phases, with the results of the previous two phases being previously published. The purpose of this article, and its framing in the conclusion of the third phase of the research project, has been explained.

 

6. The literature review only summarizes past research without making comparisons, which leads to the lack of significance in this study. It is recommended to identify shortcomings in previous research and explain the necessity of the current study.

--> Section 3 has been revised and a related works comparison table has been added to it. At the end of section 3, after analyzing the scientific literature and the existing industrial tools, the main objective of the proposed platform is now identified, highlighting the characteristics that distinguish the proposal presented from those existing in the literature.

 

7. The results section should emphasize more on the reasons behind the design of the traceability system, not just documenting the system. Additionally, the paper lacks information on the trial-and-error process in the system design.

--> The Results section has been revised and several pieces of detail that didn't add matter for discussion have been removed. Additionally, the on-chain domain entity diagram (Figure 3) has been abstracted to an analysis level, rather than showing the programming level of detail. In the Analysis and Discussion of Results’ section, the test scenarios’ presentation, previously isolated in appendices, have been incorporated into this section, and their analysis has been improved.

 

8. The conclusion section should be more concise and to the point.

--> The conclusion section has been revised. The contributions of the traceability platform resulting from this research have been highlighted. Several ideas for future work have been listed.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides some interesting results within the context of sustainability. Indeed, the structure of the paper needs a total reformulation in various parts. The presented results and methodologies are quite good but, at the actual state, some point have to be fixed.

My remarks are listed as follows.

Abstract: this section is not clear for me. I suggest the authors a revision by highlighting the most meaningful aspects of their research, as well as a precise and short overview of the obtained results. Finally, I suggest to avoid acronyms that could confuse, in this section, inexpert readers.

Section 4: I think that the provided descriptions are good but sometimes they are dispersive. I suggest the authors to shorten this part of the paper and to reformulate all contents.

Section 5: it is useless, in my opinion, to consider some appendices in order to show the results. I think that the authors should reformulate this section to show the results inside section 5. This remark also reflects my doubts about section 4. From one side, Section 4 is too long while Section 5 is too short and it does not provide what a reader could expect. The authors should find a precise balancing.

My final decision is “major revisions”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language need a light revision. Some sentences appear to be long, they should be revised. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Follows a point-by-point response to your comments:

1 - The paper provides some interesting results within the context of sustainability. Indeed, the structure of the paper needs a total reformulation in various parts.

The presented results and methodologies are quite good but, at the actual state, some point have to be fixed.

My remarks are listed as follows.

Abstract: this section is not clear for me. I suggest the authors a revision by highlighting the most meaningful aspects of their research, as well as a precise and short overview of the obtained results.

Finally, I suggest to avoid acronyms that could confuse, in this section, inexpert readers.

--> Abstract has been revised. The aim of the article is now clearly put in the Abstract section. Acronyms have been removed from the Abstract.

 

2 - Section 4: I think that the provided descriptions are good but sometimes they are dispersive. I suggest the authors to shorten this part of the paper and to reformulate all contents.

--> Section 4 (Results) has been revised and several pieces of detail that didn't add matter for discussion have been removed. Additionally, the on-chain domain entity diagram (Figure 3) has been abstracted to an  analysis level, rather than showing the programming level of detail.

 

3 - Section 5: it is useless, in my opinion, to consider some appendices in order to show the results. I think that the authors should reformulate this section to show the results inside section 5. This remark also reflects my doubts about section 4. From one side, Section 4 is too long while Section 5 is too short and it does not provide what a reader could expect. The authors should find a precise balancing.

--> Section 5 (Analysis and Discussion of Results) has been revised. The test scenarios, previously isolated in appendices, have been incorporated into this section.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.

Please draw Figure 3 clearly.

2.

Please draw Figure A1 clearly.

3.

Please draw Figure A2 clearly.

4.

Please draw Figure A3 clearly.

5.

Please draw Figure A4 clearly.

6.

Please provide a more in-depth explanation of Figure 1.

7.

Please provide a more in-depth explanation of Table 1.

8.

Please explain why you chose these environmental indicators in Table 2.

9.

Please explain why you chose these social indicators and economic indicators in Table 3.

10.

Please explain the meaning of the blue arrow in Figure 2.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Follows a point-by-point response to your comments:

1. Please draw Figure 3 clearly.

--> The on-chain domain entity diagram (Figure 3) has been abstracted to an analysis level, rather than showing the programming level of detail. Also, the text explaining the entities represented has been updated/revised.

 

2. Please draw Figure A1 clearly.
3. Please draw Figure A2 clearly.
4. Please draw Figure A3 clearly.
5. Please draw Figure A4 clearly.

--> The contents in the appendices have been incorporated in section 5 (Analysis and Discussion of Results) and the figures have been better explained in the text.

 

6. Please provide a more in-depth explanation of Figure 1.

--> The research methodology section has been revised, and the explanation of Figure 1 has been further detailed.

 

7. Please provide a more in-depth explanation of Table 1.

--> Section 3 has been revised, and a comparison table (new Table 1) has been added in subsection 3.1, for comparing related approaches in the literature. Table 2 (previously Table1) compares existing solutions in the industry for traceability. A more in depth analysis of tables 1 and 2, regarding related approaches and comparison with the proposed solution, has been added both in subsection 3.1 and in subsection 3.2.

 

8. Please explain why you chose these environmental indicators in Table 2.

--> A better explanation about the selected environmental indicators has been added in the manuscript.

 

9. Please explain why you chose these social indicators and economic indicators in Table 3.

--> A better explanation about the selected social and economic indicators has been added in the manuscript.

 

10. Please explain the meaning of the blue arrow in Figure 2.

--> The blue arrow in Figure 2 represents the cross-functional security layer. This explanation has been added in the manuscript.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deserves publication now.

Author Response

Thank you.