Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript's story is not very clear, especially the novelty. To be honest, I didn't fully understand what the authors were trying to convey. It appears they are mainly explaining how to use the SGD module in the 3DExperience software, more like a user guide than a research paper. The part where they explain their research goals, methods, and results is also unclear and needs a complete revision.

2. Additionally, the calculations in the results section are not easy to grasp:

 On page 4, line 151:

 "The research indicates that designing a new component from an existing production line involves two design iterations and takes approximately two weeks of a designer's time, equivalent to 75 hours."

 If this time is just an example, it's not clear why it's used in Table 2 to calculate savings. If it's not an example, please provide a better explanation and reference for its use.

 3. In my view, the number of references is insufficient, and the author should consider a more extensive review of the literature, emphasizing why their use of OT is a unique and innovative research contribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

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

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper to the point where I recommend- I think the revised paper is acceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required