SYSML4TA: A SysML Profile for Consistent Tolerance Analysis in a Manufacturing System Case Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe this is an interesting piece of work that provides a range of options for future applications.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
We appreciate your positive feedback. However, despite not receiving important change suggestions from you, we have made major changes to the document motivated by comments from other reviewers. These changes aim to show the proposal in a shorter, clearer and more understandable way. Specifically, the SysML profile is presented as a description supported by diagrams. We hope that these graphic representations facilitate the interpretation of the concepts handled. Thus, the detailed description of each stereotype in table format is included in the document as an appendix for those readers who wish to study the proposal in detail.
We hope that these modifications of the document are positively valued as relevant improvements of the work presented.
Best regards,
The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Article entitled with “SYSML4TA: A SysML Profile for Consistent Tolerance Analy-2 sis. A Manufacturing System Case Application” the authors presented a methodology to guarantee the consistency of assembly models for tolerance analysis through the use of a proposed domain specific modeling language (DSML) implemented as a SysML profile. This research study explores this previous work in this domain and proposed a Model-based System Engineering (MBSE) approach focused on the   use of a central model constructed using a DSML for the geometric deviation analysis. Although research work looks interesting; however, the following are the shortcoming that must be addressed to enhance the article quality and clarity for the readers.

  

§  The abstract must be revised and improved. It is lacking indicating measurable achievements obtained from the proposed model.

§  Abbreviation “MBSE” is used in Abstract before its full name appeared in the introduction section. This practice should be avoided.  

§  The Introduction / background section also needs to be improved with latest research work proposed in this research area since last 3 years.

§  Author should mention clearly about the novelty of the paper and contributions in the introductory section and in the abstract.

§  It would be better if all the abbreviations and notations used in the mathematical models are described clearly as a separate sub-section.

§  All Figures need to be clearer.

§  The conclusion section is merged with discussions.

§  There should be a separate conclusion and recommendations section. Conclusion section must highlight achievements done by this research.

§  The English proofreading and improvement are highly recommended.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please, find attached the detailed responses to your comments.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article contains information technical and innovative. The problem addressed is current and has technical relevance, which makes it significant. The abstract is written concisely. The paper is well-organized and convincing. The experimental methodology is described comprehensively. The results justify interpretations and conclusions.

 

My recommendations are:

a) The abstract should clarify what is precisely proposed (the technical contribution) and how the proposed approach is validated.

 

b) Avoid acronyms in the abstract without proper description.

c) Quality of Figures is so important too. Please provide some high-resolution figures.

d) In the references in the Introduction section, the authors cite some works. However, they have not indicated the advantage or disadvantage and their relations to this paper. It's a little confusing.

 

 

e) Please use a simple diagram or figure to illustrate the whole idea of this paper, and the modification it has been made from previous work or traditional framework.

 

 

f) The contributions of this work need to be clearly articulated. The author might consider justifying the performance of this study with recent study and methods.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please, find attached the detailed responses to your comments.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

General comments:

- The references used are obsolete; the most recent ones presented do not contribute to the scientific content of the work. The others are more than 10 years old and do not represent the state of the art of the subject.

- The contribution of the work is not identifiable. The introduction of the work should be restructured so that the problem to be solved and the contribution of the work are identifiable.

- The content of line 104 - 268, titled related work. It should be reduced and what represents state of the art should be included in the introduction.

- The methodology is not easy to follow, it is not clear how they manage to obtain the product of their proposal, although they try to explain with figures and tables.

- The case study should be better explained, what they seek to demonstrate. I recommend restructuring that section.

- The discussion section should be rewritten, compare your results with other techniques such as the ones you mentioned in your paper. Discuss the findings, limitations, contribution.

- It is very serious that the work does not have a conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please, find attached the detailed responses to your comments.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made all the required modifications. I am in favor of publishing

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, in spite of the improvements made in your manuscript, I consider the following, especially that the work must be totally reformulated to have merits to be published.

 

- The contribution of the work is not identifiable. The introduction of the work should be restructured so that the problem to be solved and the contribution of the work are identifiable.

- The methodology is not easy to follow, it is not clear how they manage to obtain the product of their proposal, although they try to explain with figures and tables.

- The case study should be better explained, what they seek to demonstrate. 

- The discussion section should be rewritten, compare your results with other techniques such as the ones you mentioned in your paper. Discuss the findings, limitations, contribution.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf