Shop Floor Digital Twin in Smart Manufacturing: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have highlighted and reviewed the Digital Twin approach; however, the paper has the following limitations that need to be addressed before resubmission.
- The papers cited in multiple sections are not present in the reference section.
- Multiple missing references such as on line 181 "The conceptual model proposed by Modoni et al. [77] aims at enhancing the under"
- Multiple reference issues such as on line 411 "a digital twin for shop floor (see Error! Reference source not found).
- The authors should have reviewed the papers based on defined criteria such as explained in defined in figure 1.
- Paper selection is miss leading with different numbers highlighted in it.
- Tables 1 and 2 needs to be justified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please read the attached document!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the Introduction section, particularly at the following lines 67-69, the authors should highlight that some reviews on DT were already conducted and published even if not in the context of manufacturing but within the safety and occupational health domain.
«Although past research reported potential applications of the digital twin in the safety (Agnusdei et al, 2021a; Agnusdei et al., 2021b) and occupational health (Agnusdei et al., 2020) contexts, an in-depth knowledge of digital twin concept, structure and development methods within manufacturing environments is still scarce [6], [20]».
Please cite:
Agnusdei, G.P., Elia, V., & Gnoni, M.G. (2021). Is Digital Twin Technology Supporting Safety Management? A Bibliometric and Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 11(6), 2767. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062767
Agnusdei, G.P., Elia, V., & Gnoni, M.G. (2021). A classification proposal of digital twin applications in the safety domain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 107137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107137
Agnusdei, G.P., Aiello, G., Certa, A., Gnoni M.G., Longo F., & Mirabelli G. (2020). Health & safety 4.0: A digital twin reference model to support the smart operator at the workplace.
In some part of the manuscript the sentence Error! Reference source not found. was detected. Please add the right reference at:
- Line 97
- Line 114
- Line 162
- Line 411
In the Materials and Methods section please clarify which are the scientific basis for the following exclusion criteria (lines 124-126 and lines 134-136):
«After this first selection, papers published before 2018 that did not have at least 124 one citation were not considered in the analysis, reducing the sample of papers to be analyzed to 190».
«Finally, applying the exclusion criterion on the basis of publication date and number of citations (as was 135 done for the Scopus search), no paper was excluded».
Please justify and support them through proper references.
It is not clear how from the systematic literature review the authors develop the HexaSFDT. Please try to adequately stress this fundamental step of the study.
The format of tables across the manuscript should be re-arranged.
Extensive editing of English language and style are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the authors addressed most of the minor comments, however, I feel there is still room for improvement for this paper. The paper at this stage does not add significant knowledge to existing literature. I will advise the authors to address the following comments before going forward.
1- In figure 3, the author depicted the process of paper selection, however, numbers in the figure text are not defined, which make it hard to understand its purpose.
2- Selected 41 papers should be shown in tabular format which paper year, paper title, methodology used by the paper, solution provided by paper, and shortcomings, and other important details. This process will highlight the author's contribution and efforts more significantly.
3- Figure 5 should reference each component such as the knowledge layer components AI, deep learning with its respective paper references rather than mentioning everything as a single reference.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the revisions, they are very useful to better clarify specific parts. We hope to have addressed all the reviews and we are ready to meet further requests.
Best Regards, The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, with the implementation of the requested changes, the paper has been significantly enhanced and meets the requirements for publication.
I now recommend the publication of the paper.
Kind regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we thank you for your feedback. They were very useful to improve the quality of our paper.
Best regards,
The Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors addressed each suggestions given during the first round of review. For this reason the manuscript could be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we thank you for your feedback. They were very useful to improve the quality of our paper.
Best regards,
The Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is significantly revised. I don't have any other comment.
