Industrial Performance Measurement Systems Coherence: A Comparative Analysis of Current Methodologies, Validation and Introduction to Key Activity Indicators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

---The abstract is lengthy please concise it and make it less maximum 200 words.

---The motivation/research gap is not clear; please clearly define your motivation.

---Please discuss some literature about hybrid models/ mixed techniques.

---Table 4 HR is repeated 3 times; please make it unique. It’s confusing.

---Please make a diagram/graphical outlook to explain your model and proposed implications.

---Compare your proposal/findings with existing work and how your work is helping to improve the current methodologies.  

 

---Language is a serious issue in your manuscript, sentences are redundant, and there is no cohesion in your paragraphs. I strongly recommend a round of proofreading before submitting the revised version. Paragraphs need to integrate information. Apart from the above-mentioned loopholes, your manuscript can not be accepted with this level of writing. 

Author Response

Thank you for your precious comments and for taking the time to review the manuscript. Please see the attached file as response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted work is good in quality, however, this goodness is not balanced. The first - literature review - part is a thorough work, but the second - method proposition - is comparatively not too detailed and may be considered as only an incrementive contribution.

A good feature is that the reviewed methods are evaluated using custom aspects. Nonetheless, the criteria choice may be improved, however, it is acceptable in its current form.

The most incomplete part is the results where only some computed numbers are given, without any background. (What was the computation input, the previous state on which the improvement is calculated etc.) The individual indicators are well explained, but a considerably more detailed result presentation is required.

Many references are broken in the submitted paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your precious comments and for taking the time to review the manuscript. Please see the attached file as response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Well-written, concise neat, and clean manuscript. Some minor issues includes:

1. Some grammatical mistakes; please check again and update. 
2. Reference 33 is not there; it may be a typo issue. 

3. More than 5% match from a manuscript entitled "Measuring coherence of performance measurement indicators in a complex and changing environment."

4. In some places, the table goes it two pages, try to put a table on one page is better. If not, the header should be repeated on every page. 

Author Response

Thank you for your precious comments and for taking the time to review the manuscript. Please see the attached file as response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Firstly, the paper is provided deep analyses of modern approaches based on industrial performance measurement and management systems for justification of rational (optimal) decision systems implementation in industry. The presented methodology (considering Key Activity Indicators) can help quickly find a rational option to increase the efficiency of technological aspects during production.

The paper is written in fluent English, easy to read and understand. The grammar is satisfying. But several suggestions can be given:

1) Some keywords fully duplicate words from the paper title. Maybe it will be better if such keywords will be changed with other;

2) For easy reading and understanding next manuscripts parts, the abbreviation "CFS" should be moved to page 3, where the full term "critical success factors" is first found;

3) Please remove technical mistakes such as "Error! Reference source not found" on pages 10 and 20;

4) Formulas must be numbered according to author's guide;

5) All terms used in an equation should be defined in the text. That’s why it will be good to describe what meaning of the coefficient “4” in formulas denominators. Is this a constant or continuous? Why does it use in every formula?

6) In my opinion, compared scale for estimating calculated criteria percentage can be added to the discussion for a full understanding of the achieved results quality. This gives opportunities to readers better see the significance of the proposed methodology.

The research results have a sufficient practice aspect for improving operations of industrial.

Author Response

Thank you for your precious comments and for taking the time to review the manuscript. Please see the attached file as response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved accordingly.