Recent Progression Developments on Process Optimization Approach for Inherent Issues in Production Shop Floor Management for Industry 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully considered and read the manuscript entitled “Recent progression developments on process optimization approach for 3 inherent issues in production shop floor management for Industry 4.0” and have the following observations:

There is no discussion that why you are doing this exercise? What is the scientific question under discussion? The article faced a lack of content analysis such as analyzing the content of the articles, first computing an occurrence, and cluster analysis to identify the themes, which are related and conversely, to determine the gaps in the literature. Second, apply multiple correspondence analysis to complement the cluster analysis, link analysis, and topics analysis and obtained a richer representation of the relationships between themes. This analysis gives the idea of future directions in the subject matter and strategies research. This is my main observation if it is addressed in a proper way will be welcome which will further enhance the quality of the paper.

This paper is well written; however, it needs more work on the contents and formatting of your manuscript. There are some issues that need more clarifications and improvements for considering it for publication in the Processes.  In addition to the above, I have a few points for the authors to consider before the publication of this work:

 

1. Line 223, “Finally concluding remarks have been” it should start with “In the fifth step, concluding remarks have been” otherwise, it is confusing with the next sentence.
2. There should be space between the last paragraph and the Table 1 heading, Should be consistent for all Tables headings.
3. How many total numbers of papers were reviewed? should be in the last row of Table 1, or at least discuss in the text of Table 1.
4. Format should be consistent for all figures, such as the axis’s text is in bold or without bold, etc.
5. Sub section headings are not correct for section 2.3.2 “3.2.1 P1” it should be 2.3.2.1 or even better to write the “P1 Lack of clarity in the production planning” instead of 3.2.1 P1”.  
6. Delete extra space between Table 3 and section 2.4, Figure 8 and Table 4, Page 20 should be deleted, Figure 10b and Section 4. Should be consistent and recheck the whole draft in terms of these kinds of issues.
7. Change the word “Novation” to Innovation, even Novelty will be a better word here in Figure 12, column 1 Heading.
8. From page 24 to onward, in the Header “Applied Sciences” is reflected instead of “Processes 2022, XX, x. For Review” It should be consistent.
9. Similarly, section numbering problem, after section 2, there is no section 3 and directly stared section 4, then after 5 directly to section 7, no section 6, be consistent. Delete section 8 “Future direction” and just discuss the future directions after conclusions in 2-3 sentences.
10. Figure 13 and all related explanations should be moved to the discussion section.
11. The conclusion section should be based on the main findings, recommendations, and way forward.  
12. Recheck all references carefully, all references in the text should be in the list and follows the Journal format which is not the case here. Furthermore, the manuscript must be checked for typo errors and spelling checks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following comments:

- Prevent the size of Figures and Tables being larger than the text margin.

- Improve Table 4

- Improve the quality of Fig. 9

- Correct page numbering, after page 24 the numbering change. Also, in page 24, the logo change. The paper was submitted to the journal Processes, however, on this page the logo changes to that of the journal Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the incorporated changes. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following comments:

- Prevent the size of Figs. 2, 5, 6, 7, 11 and Table 4 being larger than the text margin