Digital and Virtual Technologies for Work-Related Biomechanical Risk Assessment: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for sharing your work with us.

The manuscript is clear and well written. The review represents a useful tool for future research in the field of work-related biomechanical risk assessment.

However, some corrections need to be made.

1. Lines from 101 to 102. Four distinct categories are reported, under which the biomechanical risk assessment methodologies are reported.

A description of each is given in Table 1. Although the first, "Self-Assessment", is not a crucial category, a brief description is nevertheless necessary for completeness.

2. Most of the Tables arte missing in the reference in the text. 

3. In the Table 2, for th AI, there is a classification into 4 main areas. In the same table on ly ML (Machine learning) an CV (Computing vision) are descripted. It is necessary motivate or, in my opinion, it is better to introduce a brief description of each ones. 

Good luck

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards,

Paulo Anacleto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the current state regarding the use of virtual and digital tools for work-related biomechanical risk assessment, considering both literature and commercial tools available in the market. The article is interesting, focused, well-organized, and clear. Despite the complexity and abundance of information, the tables make it easier to understand the text.

However, it is important to emphasize several points:

1. Frequency of Technology Use

The frequency of use of technologies does not necessarily indicate their desirability. Desirability can be influenced by budget constraints, the ease or difficulty of learning to use the device, and the ability to deploy it in the field. Some technologies are limited to laboratory use because the devices are not portable.

2. Learning New Devices

 There are challenges in learning to use new devices, particularly in research where analyzing results is necessary, and the best methods are not always clear. Studies often balance the convenience of execution (ease of reaching the target population) with the desire to meet urgent goals and available budgets.

3. Interviews for State of the Art

To truly understand the state of the art, it is valuable to interview researchers and users about their comfort and satisfaction with the devices, as well as any limitations they encounter.

4. Purpose of Tools

 

 We aim to answer the question of the extent to which we use tools that serve our basic purposes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards,

Paulo Anacleto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the study address an important problem, but they do it quite selectively. Among others, referring to the characteristics of ergonomics, it should be noted that this is one of many approaches to the subject. And which aspect is verified in detail.

I suggest specifying the essence of I5.0 (in relation to I4.0) in more detail. The presented approach indicates that the authors do not perceive the difference between I4.0 and I5.0.

In my opinion, the title does not adequately describe the topic presented. I propose to include the concepts of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0. Moreover, in my opinion, this is more of a review of methods rather than a new paradigm for load assessment. Especially since the authors rely primarily on sources, supplementing them with their own research. Referring to their characteristic features, without indicating changes in their applicability.

I don't understand the nature of the relationships shown on Figures 1 and 2.

In section 2.2, when characterizing I4.0, it would be advisable to refer to I5.0 in its development.

In point 2.1, the authors refer to 4 categories of method classification, and in the related table 1 they indicate three. There were no characteristics of Self-Assessment methods.

In Table 1, "examples" are rather "limited detailed characterizations"

In Table 3, the "Scientific evidence" column requires supplementation.

In point 4.1: Germany and Great Britain are also Europe.

Please complete the citation (lines 106-107, 202, 248, 304 and others).

The literature was selected correctly. To sum up, the study is interesting, but needs to be sorted out and supplemented.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards,

Paulo Anacleto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly revised the paper. In my opinion, the paper is excellent. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the scope and nature of the changes introduced allow the publication of the paper.