Application of Quality 4.0 (Q4.0) and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) in Agricultural Manufacturing Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Appropriately revised the manuscript. Present form may be consider to publish in the journal

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable input and efforts to improve our paper. We greatly appreciate your guidance, which has played a significant role in ensuring that the paper meets the expectations of our readers.

With best regards,

Amandeep Singh (Corresponding Author)

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for the authors for addressing my comments. I would like to recommend one last thing - to emphasize why this study is important to be conducted (in the introduction) and elaborate further how the method can be applied in different cases (in the conclusion)

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable input and efforts to improve our paper. Your suggestion for adding need of the study and how this method can be applied in different cases is elaborated at suggested places in the revised paper.

We greatly appreciate your guidance, which has played a significant role in ensuring that the paper meets the expectations of our readers.

With best regards,

Amandeep Singh (Corresponding Author)

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Necessary corrections have been provided for the article.

Before publication fig. 5 and 8 image quality can be improved.

This is acceptable as it is.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable input and efforts to improve our paper. Your suggestion has been considered.

We greatly appreciate your guidance, which has played a significant role in ensuring that the paper meets the expectations of our readers.

With best regards,

Amandeep Singh (Corresponding Author)

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The recovery rates given in the conclusion part are very remarkable. Apart from that, I have negative opinions about the editing of the article. How data such as Tool life Comparison, Inspection cost Comparison or Machining Cost Comparison are obtained should be explained in more detail. How ZDM is so effective in Defect Rate Response for CNC machining is not mentioned (reasons need to be explained). It can be published with the decision of the editor, but in general, my opinion is negative. If it will be published, the following simple typos should be corrected. Also, more comments should be added. It should be supported by citations.

 

 Should be fixed (Before 20202). (see line 34)

 The citation order is incorrect. (see line 45-46)

 The literature should be developed.

 Fig. 5(c) should be fixed.

 Fig. 6 a,b,c… what does it mean?

 Should be fixed (3.4. machining quality Improvement). (see line 500)

Reviewer 2 Report

There are so many suggestions/comments mentioned in the body of the manuscript. Author should follow the comments/suggestions for further improvement of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This paper addresses an important topic of sustainable manufacturing in an agriculture component manufacturing company. However, I found this paper to have insufficient quality for a publication in a reputable scientific journal such as AgriEngeering. The motivation and methodology are not adequately described. The results section has no critical discussion. The authors need to conduct a major revision for this paper.

Some detailed comments are listed below:

·         Please rewrite the abstract as it is not clear what is motivation of the study. The abstract should contain a brief introduction of the project, together with problem statements which the study would like to address

·         Line 34 – what is 20202?

·         The introduction part is too length and is cramped into a paragraph. Please separate your ideas into several paragraphs to help readers in understanding context of your study.

·         There is no clear connection between the research background and motivation of the study. Please elaborate more on this

·         Please specify sources for Figure 1 and Figure 2. Does the data is from your own estimation / source? If yes, methodology on how the data is obtained needs to be highlighted.

·         What is plant 1 in Line 148? It seems coming from nowhere. The authors need to explain this in further.

·         Figure 3 – please maximise the space to ensure clear view of the dimensions etc.

·         Labelling for Figure 4 – needs to be checked

·         Table 1 does not follow format for table as required by the journal

·         Table 2 – the font is too small to read

·         What is the purpose of Figure 6? It looks like just some images to show the machine, which I think it is not required

·         Why research concept and background comes at Section 2.7? This section should be explained earlier.

·         Too little information in Figure 10 – which can be shown in a single sentence. Figure 10 is not required.

·         The result section is too dry as the authors only describe the figures, without any attempt to critically discussed the findings. Please include some discussions.

·         Please check numbering for the references.

·         I suggest the authors to send this manuscript for a proofread as it is difficult to follow ideas of the paper. Some parts are very confusing. For instance for Line 252-256 – what the machine product quality has to with misunderstanding by the quality managers?

Reviewer 4 Report

The design development of ZDM is well presented. Results are relevant and rejection data analysis is very useful  to understand the optimization process.

Some typos in the keywords list and in the introduction ("before 20202").