Sustainability in Industry 4.0: Edge Computing Microservices as a New Approach
, Maria Lucia Pereira da Silva 1,3 and Sebastião Gomes dos Santos Filho 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study provides a compelling integration of microservices and edge computing to advance sustainability within the framework of Industry 4.0.
While the study successfully illustrates the potential of edge computing in reducing resource consumption and improving efficiency, certain areas require refinement. Expanded scalability tests under high-load, multi-user, and long-term operational conditions would better assess the system’s robustness in real-world settings. Additionally, incorporating detailed performance metrics, such as energy efficiency and comparative benchmarks against traditional cloud computing architectures, would provide stronger validation of the framework’s benefits. Broader dataset testing, including noisy, incomplete, and diverse data formats, would further establish the system’s adaptability and resilience.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper explores the intersection of sustainability, electronics, and Industry 4.0 through the lens of edge computing and microservices. It discusses the rapid obsolescence of electronic instruments and the consequent increase in electronic waste, proposing a solution in the form of an application named AIFC, which is based on microservices and designed to run independently of systems, leveraging existing computing structures. The research, conducted as action research involving both researchers and practitioners, tests the AIFC in various scenarios, from proof of concept to scalability, and suggests a roadmap for future developments. The study demonstrates that the use of edge computing structures, based on an Enterprise Services Bus (ESB) developed in decentralized microservices, can effectively reduce obsolescence, increase sustainability, and serve as a valuable tool for Industry 4.0 and Small and Medium Enterprises.
1. In the conclusion, the authors claim "This work used a previously established tool (AIFC) to unravel a simple roadmap for I4.0 on SME." However, it is still not clear to me which research questions this study aim to solve and what are the main findings in this study? If the outcome is only a conceptual roadmap, it is difficult to capture the real values of this study.
2. It is also difficult to understand the type of this study. Whether it is a survey paper or a research paper is not so clear. The authors are basically talking about existing knowledge, without proposing new ideas or methods.
3. The introduction fails to summarize the main contributions. The authors should list their main contributions in bullets in the end of the introduction section.
4. The research background in the introduction is not updated and not comprehensive. The authors should add more discussion for recent literature including Lightweight Knowledge Distillation and Feature Compression Model for User Click-Through Rates Prediction in Edge Computing Scenarios and An online service function chain orchestration method for profit maximization in edge computing networks.
5. In this paper, the authors can add more figures for explaining some basic concepts.
6. What is the relationship between Industry 4.0 and microservices? A figure is better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle of the paper: Sustainability in Industry 4.0: Edge Computing Microservices as a New Approach
The present research focuses on Algorithm Ignitor to Fog Computing (AIFC), which can run on a simple computer with big data deployment. The authors proposed six different scenarios with simple to complex structural variability to carry out the defined and designed task performance.
Comments:
1) Please refer to the abstract that looks too long and needs tuning to highlight the present research more effectively. Since edge, fog, and cloud computing are based on a unique fundamental. The authors may refer to edge computing instead of synonymizing it with fog. Note 1 in the abstract may be eliminated by shifting information to the manuscript.
2) The introduction section must be rewritten to focus on the monolithic architecture, evolution to microservices architecture, microdevices, edge, fog, and cloud computing needs, benefits, and their application in Industry 4.0, and how sustainability is enhanced through such deployment.
3) Footnotes may be eliminated in the manuscript.
4) Several sections look disjointed for example 2.1 Sustainability, 2.2 Industry 4.0 and SME, and 2.3 Electronics are not written regarding microservice and edge computing. How are they playing a significant role in computer architecture in the digital era?
5) Edge computing and microservices are well practiced by Netflix, Amazon, Uber, etc. The manuscript fails to prove the worth of microservices and edge computing for sustainability.
6) The role of stakeholders shown in Table 2, needs more explanation.
7) Please refer to four steps i.e.‘(1 - POC, 2 - Prototype, 3 - MVP and 4 - Scalability) of the roadmap design, are not well connected.
8) In the present state the paper does not provide useful research contributions. The manuscript title has not been fully justified.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWriting issues:
The paper needs careful reading and editing to eliminate typos.
(a) Footnote 1 to the fog in the abstract may be removed.
(b) ',,,ingress on the I4.0 context.' should be ',,,ingress in the I4.0 context.'
(c) (tables 1 and 2). should be (Tables 1 and 2).
(d) ‘Proof of Concept’ . should be ‘proof of concept’
(e) One important solution, not foresee on the roadmap, comes from software and Artificial Intelligence, the statement needs (.) and should be foreseen
(f) ‘…..a Roadmap for future…’ should be ‘…..a roadmap for future…’
(g) Figure 4. Elements added to the ESB for the MVP. analisys should be analysis
(h) 'Waseem et al. shows that in 2021 80% ...' should be 'Waseem et al. show that in 2021, 80% ...'
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle of the Paper: Sustainability in Industry 4.0: Edge Computing Microservices as a New Approach
Manuscript ID: sustainability-3315529-peer-review-v2
Thank you very much for the updated version.
======================================
Several comments have been updated. However, some of them are to be taken care.
New Comments:
1) Please refer to new Table 1. Main factors on the electronics sector which increment favor sustainability and can also impact the I4.0 and SME. How edge computing and microservices helps in raising the sustainability is yet unclear.
2) The whole paper is based on Algorithmic Ignitor to Fog Computing (AIFC) and Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) and related steps. But their connectivity to sustainability looks very limited.
3) The scope of Edge computing and Microservices is not explored enough to justify the manuscript title.
4) The general applicability of the present research looks limited.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageTitle of the Paper: Sustainability in Industry 4.0: Edge Computing Microservices as a New Approach
Manuscript ID: sustainability-3315529-peer-review-v2
Thank you very much for the updated version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the updated version. I appreciate your hard work in imbibing the needed changes.
New Comments:
=================
(a) The Figure 6. The proposed roadmap for developing the MVP AIFC structure may be modified to improve its appearance. Please make the roadmap line a bit darker and the arrows visible.
(b)Please refre to Table 7. For the SWOT-like matrix for the second step, you may add 'Factors' as a first-column heading.
(c)Please refer to 'Z-emission processes, promoting ...' and 'Life Cycle Assessment'' may refre to the following MDPI papers:
(i)Yadav, A., Sachdeva, A., Garg, R.K., Qureshi, K.M., Mewada, B.G., Qureshi, M.R.N.M. and Mansour, M., 2024. Assessing Drivers Influencing Net-Zero Emission Adoption in Manufacturing Supply Chain: A Hybrid ANN-Fuzzy ISM Approach. Sustainability (2071-1050), 16(17).
(ii)Yadav, A., Sachdeva, A., Garg, R.K., Qureshi, K.M., Mewada, B.G., Qureshi, M.R.N.M. and Mansour, M., 2024. Achieving net-zero in the manufacturing supply chain through carbon capture and LCA: a comprehensive framework with BWM-fuzzy DEMATEL. Sustainability, 16(16), p.6972.
(d) Please check 'Conflicts of Interest:'
(e) Please set references as per MDPI format, The webpage visited may be assigned the date
(f) Please refer to Figure 1. Interconnection between Industry 4.0, SMEs, Electronics and Sustainability. The sub-component of 'Electronics' shown at the top right is hardly readable. Similarly, Figure 2 needs your attention.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThank you for the updated version.
(a) Windows11 [12]. should be Windows 11 [12]. A space may be provided before 11.
(b) OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), should be Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD ), Similarly PCB, NIMBY.. Please check if there are any more in the format.
(c) Non-standards phrases may not be capitalised for instance 'Industrial Ecology and Life Cycle Design', Please check for others.
(d) Please refer to Table 1, the column having common content for instance 'Roadmap' may be deleted and the necessary information may be moved to the text. This may help in Table 1 readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
