Promoting Synergies to Improve Manufacturing Efficiency in Industrial Material Processing: A Systematic Review of Industry 4.0 and AI

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a systematic review and theoretical discussions on the application of Industry 4.0 and Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the efficiency of material processing.

There are some improvements to be made before the next version of the paper. There are also some questions to be asked. Below are my questions and improvement proposals for the paper presented.

1 - There is a lack of inclusion of case studies and/or practical examples to validate the state of the art they present.

2 - References: The review is adequate, but some references could and should be updated with more recent references.

3 - The association of AI with Industry 4.0 in the article is valid, but it would be beneficial if the authors added more information about the connection between AI and Industry 5.0, in order to provide a more complete and updated view.

4 - Cybersecurity: Authors need to include more technical information about the security implications of automated and connected systems, as in the case of PLCs and Industrial Manipulators (Robots).

5 - Sustainability: In my opinion, the authors should add something about the environmental impact and sustainability of the technologies covered.

6 - Chapter 6 should include more development topics. Namely:

- Standardization and development of interoperability of industrial protocols and Industry 4.0;

- Preventive maintenance using advanced AI;

- Evolution of Cybersecurity from Industry 4.0 to 5.0;

- Interoperability between Systems from Different Manufacturers, which ensures that systems/technologies from different manufacturers can be integrated efficiently;

- Adaptation of Industry 4.0 Technologies for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), as there are immense financial and technical barriers.

7 - The conclusions are very poor. They should expand this section and improve it.

- Reinforce the practical implications and applicability of the results.

- Ensure that conclusions are linked to research objectives and questions.

- Highlight the contributions of the study and indicate clear directions for future research.

 

Questions

1 - Is there a specific reason why the article does not include a detailed comparison between the mentioned technologies (e.g. IoT, Big Data, AI) in terms of advantages, limitations and applicability in different industrial contexts?

2 - What were the selection criteria for studies in the systematic review? What were they based on?

3 - Why is the discussion of the results not compared in more detail with other existing research?

4 - In chapter 6, why did the authors not identify the topic "Interoperability and Industrial Communication Standards" or others mentioned above?

5 - Shouldn't the review article have more extensive conclusions?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is clear, but requires improvement. There are cases of repetitive sentences and complex sentence structures that could be simplified for better understanding. Review the text for grammar and punctuation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript seems to be a short overview of the method of intelligent manufacturing. It is hard to draw any conclusion based on the presented work. A review paper is expected to add information based on the previous work reported and their conclusion. Please add the critical summary and analysis from the reported literature so that a meaningful conclusion can be made. Please modify the conclusion to include what is learned from this review work.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reads well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments This paper reviewed on the “Promoting synergies to improve manufacturing efficiency in material processing: A systematic review of Industry 4.0 using artificial intelligence”.

1- The title of paper is not clear. In material processing of what?

2-      What is the main connection between Industry 4.0 and the artificial intelligence.

3-      Related to the processing of additive materials, their limitations from the previous study should be discussed in the introduction section?

4-      Please explain more details about the flow chart in Figure 1. What is the the “Post-Processing Operations”, “Flow”?

5-      Besides, the AI technology, the authors should discuss in detail about the other tools that can be used for improving material processing efficiency? What are the main limitations of them?

6-      Some Figures and Tables were given without the detailed explanation. Fore example, Figure 13 “Key components of AI”, and Table 4 “lists the main AI technologies together with how they affect the pertinent sector”.

7-      The authors were reused many Images from the previous papers without “reuse copyright permission” from the copyright holder.

8-      This paper is too long. The authors should remove some unnecessary sections of paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With this improvements, the work in better organized and comprehensively described.

Author Response

Comment

"With these improvements, the work in better organized and comprehensively described."

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your time and guidance to improve this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have appropriately addressed the comments. It can be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Comment

"The authors have appropriately addressed the comments. It can be accepted for publication."

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your time and guidance to improve this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of paper has been improved.

(1) Add more keywords that related to your main highlight of research.

(2) The quality image in Figure 1 is too low. The author can draw the image based on the the published article.

(3) The conclusion section is too long. Making it as the concluding marks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf