Systematic Literature Review: Integration of Additive Manufacturing and Industry 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors perform a systematic literature survey of business innovation and sustainability in the context of additive manufacturing. While I agree that these are interesting topics worthy of a review of the literature, I don’t think it was achieved here. A large part of the article is spent analyzing publication statistics. Some of this can be interesting but not to this extent. It would be much more useful to the reader to have a more detailed summary and critical reflection on the contents of these papers rather than their aggregate numbers. This is done to some extent in sections 4.2 and 5 but it is much too short for a review paper. The authors should condense section 4.1 and expand on sections 4.2 and 5 before the paper can be considered for publication. I also have the following more specific comments:

The process in figure 5 is not explained in the main text. For example, how were articles screened? What were the eligibility criteria?

The lists of journal names and author names are not very useful, they can be obtained from a simple Scopus search. A better way to discuss the contribution of different authors would be to name prominent researchers/ groups in the discussion of different articles and ideas in 4.2, which was done partially.

Figure 9 and 12 seem to show the same data as Figure 6. What is the reason to have them?

Table 5 and 7 should include publication year.

 

Author Response

Point 1: The process in figure 5 is not explained in the main text. For example, how were articles screened? What were the eligibility criteria?

 

Response 1: We detailed in the main text the process used for the systematic literature review as follows: First, a general search was performed using the search string in both selected databases.  Second, we removed duplicates and excluded the articles that did not satisfy the inclusion criteria I1, I2, and I3 already established. Finally, articles were reviewed by title, then by abstract, and after full text assessed we selected the articles concerned with sustainability and business innovation topics. The remaining articles were included in the qualitative synthesis for this research. 

 

Point 2: Figure 9 and 12 seem to show the same data as Figure 6. What is the reason to have them?

 

Response 2: Figure 6 is a comparison between the evolution of sustainability and business innovation topics over the years.  Figures 9 and 12 indicate topic evolution and trend in percentage, but there were eliminated from section 4.1 to avoid repeated information.

 

Point 3: Table 5 and 7 should include publication year.

 

Response 3: Publication year were added in both tables

 

Point 4: It would be much more useful to the reader to have a more detailed summary and critical reflection on the contents of these papers rather than their aggregate numbers. This is done to some extent in sections 4.2 and 5 but it is much too short for a review paper. The authors should condense section 4.1 and expand on sections 4.2 and 5 before the paper can be considered for publication.

 

Response 4: One of the objectives of the article was the bibliometric analysis of both topics on the industry 4.0 context.  Through the bibliometric method we want to provide an overview of the body of knowledge of this field using bibliometric data of published literature. To condense information, figure 9, 12, and affiliation of the most productive authors in both areas was deleted. (section 4.1 lines 176 – 177, 192- 193, 213 – 214 and 237 - 238)

 

Point 5: It would be much more useful to the reader to have a more detailed summary and critical reflection on the contents of these papers rather than their aggregate numbers. This is done to some extent in sections 4.2 and 5 but it is much too short for a review paper. The authors should condense section 4.1 and expand on sections 4.2 and 5 before the paper can be considered for publication.

 

Response 5: We performed an additional analysis in business innovation and sustainability developments in the industry 4.0 context in lines 308 – 314, 337 – 340, and 372 – 379 (section 4.2), also we expand the discussion through the key aspects in business innovation and sustainability of AM for Industry 4.0 in lines 392 – 398 and 406 – 411 (section 5).

It has to be considered that these topics are quite new and it is through this kind of analysis that its present relevance can be shown; the aggregate numbers allow to identify a growing research interest on both topics but only after a very deep filtering process from 522 references to only 78. Moreover, the included metadata provide a logical structure that let the reader to understand how it is developing a research field at this early stage.

We agree about the usefulness of a critical reflection on the contents of the published papers, and although this is not the aim of this work, we consider it is provided enough information to the readers to understand the main points of the most relevant contributions.

Attached you will find the English editing services certificate from this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
I have read Your manuscript with great attention and interest. In my opinion, the paper fills the gap existing in described subject and gives very important information for scientists and engineers. The submission falls within the scope of the Metals journal and is sufficiently original and comprehensive and I recommend it to publish.

Author Response

received 

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is very interesting review paper. There are presented information about Additive Manufacturing technology integrated with Industry 4.0 in business model innovation, and sustainability fields. These topics are very useful, especially for industry community. Moreover this paper is written in logical way and good in English. I recommend it for publication in Metals journal in "as is" form.

Author Response

received

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments and the paper can be accepted.