Contextual Relationships of Factors Affecting Sustainability 4.0 in the Textile Industry
, Eryka Fernanda Miranda Sobral 1,*, Djalma Silva Guimarães 1, André Philippi Gonzaga de Albuquerque 2, Silvio André Vital 2, Pablo Aurélio Lacerda de Almeida Pinto 1, Tatyane Veras de Queiroz Ferreira da Cruz 1, Rômulo César Dias de Andrade 1 and Kliver Lamarthine Alves Confessor 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript applied Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) technique on 16 sustainability impact factors (terms) to qualitatively identify the contextual relationships among the factors, with an intent to assess the Industry 4.0 and sustainability 4.0 efforts in textile industry. The paper would require significant revision before it can be published. Some specific comments are listed below.
1. Sentence structure and grammatical errors are present throughout the entire manuscript, negatively impacting the flow and understandings. Many paragraphs and sentences are fragmented, making it difficult to comprehend. There are also a lot of misuses in punctuations. Please consider revising.
2. For the introduction and theoretical background sections, could the authors please lay out the logics in between / among the different paragraphs? It is appreciated that the authors did a thorough introduction on the relevant literatures, but the overall flow is not easy to understand. It might be good to group some references together and focus on introducing the key concept / logic behind conducting this study.
3. Line 260: Table 6?
4. For the 16 impact factors listed, are they all from the systematic literature review that cited by the authors? From the definitions, it can be understood that they are relevant to the textile industry (in fact they are generally applicable to almost all sectors), but what is the relevancy to the industry 4.0 and sustainability 4.0 concepts?
5. What are the thoughts behind choosing only these 16 factors? Any alternatives being considered?
6. The dataset used is a bit confusing. So there is only 1 actual textile industry practitioner (the manager of an organization) involved? The overall description of the dataset and the methods used need to be improved.
7. Symbology: VAX0 or VAXO?
8. Table 5: There might be a better way of representing these data.
9. What are the criteria used in partitioning? Is it like a binary tree? Any uncertainty/confidence information in such a partition and analysis?
10. For the MICMAC analysis, it seems like none of the factors are autonomous, and there is no discussion around such an observation.
11. Again, it would be good to provide more information with regards to the 4 clusters shown in Figure 3.
12. With the qualitative investigation and results, it is still very hard to connect them with the industry 4.0 and sustainability 4.0 concepts. Why is such analysis important? How does it answer the proposed research question? The reviewer is not very clear with the underlying connections.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease perform a thorough editorial check on grammars, sentence structure, and punctuation use.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research presented in the paper is clearly relevant for the journal, as it specifically examines the factors affecting the sustainability of the textile industry, with a focus on the Industry 4.0 concept. The description of the problem is clear and the research is supported by an extensive review of the related literature.
The structure of the paper is also well thought out and easily followable. The applied analytical method isn't exactly new, but the area of application is original and the derived resutls can clearly be useful for the related field. The format and style of the paper are also adequate.
What is a bit lacking however is the description of the concrete consequences of the findings in the study. In this regard, there is a bit of a gap between the introduction and the discussion of the results: while the introduction starts with the description of the concrete situation of the textile industry in Brazil, the results themselves are mainly theoretical in nature and does not related to any case study. Therefore, it would be very useful if the authors elaborate at least in the discussion part their recommendations on how to increase the sustainability of the textile industry based on their findings, ideally coupled with concrete indicators from the industry, but this could also be a separate sub-chapter in its own.
Besides, while the English language of the paper is generally good, there is still some room for improvement, for example in line 52 there is a sentence which starts with a lower case letter and the line 103 is also confusing ("analyzes"?). Therefore, a minor editing of the English language would be required.
After the implementaion of the previous recommendations, I can support the publication of the paper without additional changes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWhile the English language of the paper is generally good, there is still some room for improvement, for example in line 52 there is a sentence which starts with a lower case letter and the line 103 is also confusing ("analyzes"?). Therefore, a minor editing of the English language would be required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has addressed all the previous comments. The reviewer recommends acceptance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAcceptable for publication.
