The Fifth Industrial Revolution as a Transformative Step towards Society 5.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the assessed work with interest and unfortunately I have to state that it does not meet the requirements for publication in this scientific journal.

The authors completely ignored the instructions of the pre-authors. In my opinion, it is just a comparison of ideas, without an obvious systematic and especially a goal. The last chapter "Conclusion" is a mockery.

I recommend authors to completely rework their work, especially in accordance with the journal's instructions, and try again to be successful in the review process.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

I read the assessed work with interest and unfortunately I have to state that it does not meet the requirements for publication in this scientific journal.

Answer: Thank you for your constructive comments, and we appreciate your ideas. We thoroughly edited the manuscript and observed significant improvements compared to the initial version. Please refer to the highlighted portions throughout the manuscript.

The authors completely ignored the instructions of the pre-authors. In my opinion, it is just a comparison of ideas, without an obvious systematic and especially a goal. The last chapter, "Conclusion", is a mockery.

# As a methodology for our conceptual paper, we employed a "visionary statement" approach, using descriptive language to vividly portray our concepts alongside the introduction of a novel idea. Simultaneously, we undertook a philosophical exploration, delving into the fundamentals and principles of "Industry 5.0" and "Society 5.0" and their evolution over distinct phases of time. Recognizing the reviewer's request (comment) to mention specific "methods" employed in our concept paper, we clarify that, given the nature of our study as a conceptual paper, our focus is on elucidating the philosophical foundations and principles. Specifically, we aim to explore how the fifth industrial revolution serves as a transformative step towards Society 5.0.

Regarding your feedback on the conclusion section, we have revised it and added a discussion section. The entire conclusion has been rewritten. Kindly review the manuscript from pages 13 to 14. Additionally, in the last paragraph, we have enhanced the conclusion as follows:

“In conclusion, as we see the world has witnessed the first to fifth industrial revolutions, which have impacted humanity differently over time. The transformation from the Fourth to the Fifth Industrial Revolution must be more human-centred, focused on human empowerment and capable of addressing potential global challenges collectively, complementing a harmonious integration of society, technology, and industry on human wellbeing, as it has envisioned in Society 5.0. Further, we adhere that Industry 5.0 is the “next phase of advancement” as humans collaborate with machines to optimize productivity, innovation, and efficiency, and the transformation of Indus-try 5.0 to Society 5.0 is further enhancement of “human welfare” with the appropriate use of technology, where technological advancement be more human-centric and enhances all aspects of human life. Indeed, a real transition to Society 5.0 is possible when a new type of personality is formed, and conditions are created in which a person can truly identify with the content of Society 5.0 in order to reveal and improve his or her potentials for the benefit of himself or herself and the whole of humanity. Such a person as a person should embody the unity of high project consciousness and spiritual culture as a condition for understanding and revealing the true universal symbolic and cultural meanings of Society 5.0."

I recommend authors to completely rework their work, especially in accordance with the journal's instructions, and try again to be successful in the review process.

Answer:

Thank you. As advised, we completely rewrote the manuscript, and we believe it has been significantly improved, as you can see throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article starts from the acceptance of the existence of a concept that, although used in the scientific field, is far from being commonly accepted. In this sense, it is worth recalling that the Industrial Revolutions were structured according to an element that made it possible to compare them: energy. Rifkin, precisely, proposed the existence of the third industrial revolution in relation to the new energy production systems. Well, this raises many doubts about the admissibility of the fourth and fifth industrial revolutions. For this reason, it is essential that the authors explain in the introduction the scientific reasons for opting for this terminology and classification.

At the end of the introduction, it would be useful to indicate one or two specific objectives to be developed in this paper.

Since it is a conceptual work, it does not have to have a specific methodology. However, it would be convenient for the authors to indicate the theoretical approach in which this study could be framed.

A conceptual work cannot be opinionated. The problem we encounter is that the authors fall into statements that are difficult to justify. For example: "Perhaps the ideal of the Fifth Industrial Revolution (5IR) is the idea of humans and machines working harmoniously together, emphasising the well-being of multiple stakeholders - governments and policy makers, businesses and corporations, academic institutions and industries, civil society and humanitarian organisations, and technology providers and technology users" When this statement is made, it would be useful to add some data to support what is indicated. Another example of this can be found in this statement: "While the 4IR witnessed a competitive dynamic between humans and machines, the 5IR seeks a more collaborative and harmonious relationship between humans and technology". When did such a "competitive dynamic" occur and in which regions did it take place? I am aware of the existence of negative perceptions in society, but I am unaware of such a dynamic.

Section 4 should be substantially expanded. The information provided on the so-called 5.0 society is scarce. More scientific and explanatory rigor is needed. It gives the impression that a Japanese plan is a scientific document of great relevance and, evidently, this is not the case. On the other hand, the data obtained from the Internet are scarce and not very informative. It seems that the existence of 150 documents (we do not know what types of documents) means that a concept must be accepted uncritically.

In short, the article needs a greater contribution of scientifically consolidated documents. It is also necessary for the authors to carry out a critical analysis of the concepts on which they work. In this regard, I believe that more discussion should be entered into with the works of Deguchi or Deshmukh cited in the article. In addition, it is necessary to show more conceptual clarity in reference to the central concepts of the analysis. 

As the text is presented, at present, it looks like an opinion article (something inappropriate for a scientific journal) and, therefore, it is far from being a scientific article.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The article starts with accepting the existence of a concept that, although used in the scientific field, is far from being commonly accepted. In this sense, it is worth recalling that the Industrial Revolutions were structured according to an element that made it possible to compare them: energy. Rifkin, precisely, proposed the existence of the third industrial revolution about the new energy production systems. Well, this raises many doubts about the admissibility of the fourth and fifth industrial revolutions. For this reason, the authors must explain in the introduction the scientific reasons for opting for this terminology and classification.

Answer:

Thank you for your "thoughtful" comment. We agree with your views, and we entirely reworked the manuscript, adding a discussion section. Since the paper is a "conceptual paper," we aim to envision how the fifth industrial revolution serves as a transformative step towards Society 5.0 from a more philosophical and "visionary" perspective. In alignment with your point, we acknowledge that clear boundaries and timeframes for the transition from each industrial revolution to the next stage are not well-defined. Given the nature of the paper as a "Concept Paper," we referred to previous studies, citing them while mentioning terminology and classifications.

At the end of the introduction, it would be useful to indicate one or two specific objectives to be developed in this paper.

Answer: We have added the aims at the end of introduction. Thank you.

Since it is a conceptual work, it does not have to have a specific methodology. However, it would be convenient for the authors to indicate the theoretical approach in which this study could be framed.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Upon careful consideration, I recognize the importance of explicitly mentioning the theoretical underpinnings of our conceptual paper. Although the paper did not explicitly specify a particular theory, it draws upon concepts rooted in Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 and its transformative step towards the next "human-centric" approach. The paper aims to elucidate the emergence and evolution of the first five industrial revolutions, delineating their evolutionary trajectories and transformative phases leading to the conceptualisation of Society 5.0. Conceptual work is recognised for formulating and understanding phenomena by refining and developing abstract concepts. Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 represent novel conceptual frameworks ready to take humanity to the next stage of its developmental continuum. We have revised the manuscript to include this clarification throughout the manuscript.

A conceptual work cannot be opinionated.

Answer:

Thank you for the comment. To the best of our knowledge, while conceptual papers typically aim to present ideas, concepts, and theoretical frameworks rather than empirical evidence, authors(s) can still reflect their perspectives and opinions to some extent. However, in the present study, with the extensive literature cited, we aim to maintain a balance and ensure that the opinions presented are well-founded and supported by the literature.

The problem we encounter is that the authors fall into statements that are difficult to justify. For example: "Perhaps the ideal of the Fifth Industrial Revolution (5IR) is the idea of humans and machines working harmoniously together, emphasising the well-being of multiple stakeholders - governments and policymakers, businesses and corporations, academic institutions and industries, civil society and humanitarian organisations, and technology providers and technology users" When this statement is made, it would be useful to add some data to support what is indicated.

Answer: Unfortunately, we cannot provide any data here. Moreover, MDPI states that for conceptual papers, no new empirical data is presented. Instead, this article type makes use of existing concepts and knowledge.

Another example of this can be found in this statement: "While the 4IR witnessed a competitive dynamic between humans and machines, the 5IR seeks a more collaborative and harmonious relationship between humans and technology". When did such a "competitive dynamic" occur and in which regions did it take place? I am aware of the existence of negative perceptions in society, but I am unaware of such a dynamic.

Answer: Thank you for your note. This was mentioned in the Noble et al. (2023) paper. See Table 1 for details: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022435922000288. The authors do not mention the region, but we suspect that this happened in the USA (and not only). We have also replaced "dynamic" with "interplay", which fits the sentence better.

Section 4 should be substantially expanded. The information provided on the so-called 5.0 society is scarce. More scientific and explanatory rigour is needed. It gives the impression that a Japanese plan is a scientific document of great relevance and, evidently, this is not the case. On the other hand, the data obtained from the Internet are scarce and not very informative. It seems that the existence of 150 documents (we do not know what types of documents) means that a concept must be accepted uncritically.

Answer:  Thank you for the comment.  We have extensively revised the manuscript.  

# 150 documents (we do not know what types of documents) è

Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have briefly elaborated on the results of the research result as follows: "Up to now, the different conceptual frameworks of "Society 5.0" have been envisioned in domain-specific contexts as we synthesize the results of the search engines (i.e. Google Scholar, Scopus data, etc.). For example, in the technological context, it has been envisioned as integrating cutting-edge technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and Big Data, focusing on people-centred. In a government context, it is a paradigm shift towards more inclusive, sustainable and efficient governance. From a sociological aspect, it is a holistic approach that uses technological advancement for a human-centric future that combines economic growth with socioeconomic and sustainable well-being.”

In short, the article needs a greater contribution of scientifically consolidated documents. It is also necessary for the authors to carry out a critical analysis of the concepts on which they work. In this regard, I believe that more discussion should be entered into with the works of Deguchi or Deshmukh cited in the article. In addition, it is necessary to show more conceptual clarity in reference to the central concepts of the analysis.

Answer: Thank you. We have added a discussion section and tried to enhance the clarity of our argument in the manuscript.

As the text is presented, at present, it looks like an opinion article (something inappropriate for a scientific journal) and, therefore, it is far from being a scientific article.

Answer: Thank you for your critical comment. Our article is classified as a "Concept Paper". According to the MDPI, a concept paper is defined as follows

Concept Paper: No new empirical data is presented. Instead, the article type makes use of existing concepts and knowledge. It provides new insight into, new ways of looking at existing knowledge and concepts. Such new insights into existing knowledge and concepts could lead to new research questions, with a suggested minimum word count of 4000 words.

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/societies/instructions

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

based on the changes made, I agree to publish the article.

Sincerely, Reviewer

Author Response

“ Dear Authors, based on the changes made, I agree to publish the article.

Sincerely, Reviewer”

>>>>> Thank you for your reviews. We really appreciate you taking the time to read and evaluate our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has improved substantially. The text is now much clearer and more explanatory. The introduction is adequate and the subsequent analysis is adequate. I still consider that a scientific text should not cite Wikipedia as a source of information. I humbly ask the authors to remove this reference, as it detracts from their work.

On the other hand, I also suggest that they remove the word discussion from the title of the final section. I say this because there is no discussion in this section, in fact there is no citation. It is a concluding section. 

Congratulations on your efforts to improve the article.

Author Response

“This paper has improved substantially. The text is now much clearer and more explanatory. The introduction is adequate and the subsequent analysis is adequate.”

>>>>> Thank you for your reviews. We highly appreciate your effort in reading and evaluating our manuscript.

I still consider that a scientific text should not cite Wikipedia as a source of information. I humbly ask the authors to remove this reference, as it detracts from their work.

>>>>> Thank you for your suggestion. Agreeing with you, instead of mentioning "Wikipedia" in the text, we cited another source as "Akira (n.d.)" in the text. 

* In Table 2 we have used a data extracted from the following Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution

We agree that citing a Wikipedia article in an academic manuscript is (or was) generally not recommended. However, this Wikipedia article is based on 80 other publications (see references), most of which are academic papers. Technically, it would be much more difficult for us to analyse these 80 papers using https://www.chatpdf.com/

According to the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

“Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.” (Citations are given in the article)

“Sverrir Steinsson investigated factors that influenced the credibility of English Wikipedia in 2023, and found that "Wikipedia transformed from a dubious source of information in its early years to an increasingly reliable one over time."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/rule-ambiguity-institutional-clashes-and-population-loss-how-wikipedia-became-the-last-good-place-on-the-internet/FC3F7B9CBF951DD30C2648E7DEFB65EE

On the other hand, I also suggest that they remove the word discussion from the title of the final section. I say this because there is no discussion in this section, in fact there is no citation. It is a concluding section. 

>>>>> Thank you for your advice. We have deleted the word "discussion" from the text's title.

Congratulations on your efforts to improve the article.

>>>>> Thank you for your sincere review,