Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article examines a very interesting topic, and this topic is very trendy and up to date. To achieve the results and findings of this article, the authors have chosen a suitable research design. In this article, the methodology and how to obtain the results are well explained in full detail and all the findings claimed in the abstract of this article are the methodological output of this article. In the discussion section, the findings of the article are analyzed in detail. However, the structure of the article and the way the article is written need improvements, after which I can recommend this article for publication.

- The first point is about the title of the article. The use of acronym in the title of the article should be avoided, and full letters should be written.

- The second point about the title of the article, why is the word journal mentioned in the title? The title of the article should be such that it covers the research goals and findings of the article, and the reader knows what findings he / she expects by reading the title of the article.

- The third point is about the use of verb tenses in the abstract of the article. In the abstract of the article, the rule is that when the sentences are about the objectives, methodology, and results of the article, the simple past tense should be used.

Although the article is written very explicit, the structure of the article is not academically appropriate. for example:

- In the introduction section, the authors should mention the need for this scientific research using references. In other words, they must first identify the research problem of this article, and then prove by citing the references that this research problem is very important by providing credible reasons to substantiate their claim. They also must say how the other researchers addressed the same research problem, and then they must justify the novelty of their work (i.e., why they think their solution to this research problem is distinguished compared with the current solutions in the literature). This is while the authors have written the following sentence only in lines 65-66, which is not enough:

 

“We believe that this low level modelling of EDI messages has not been investigated before and will strengthen performance testing for Supply Chain organisations.”

 

- I did not understand the philosophy of the last paragraph of the introduction (i.e., lines 69-77). The introduction section should be an introductory to the article and state what the research problem is, and why it is important to address this research issue, and how others addressed this problem, and why the authors believe that their solution (what is article innovation?) is unique, and who can benefit from the output of this article? However, only one sentence is written in lines 56-57 as follows, which is not enough:

 

“This paper proposes a framework that DevOps can leverage, allowing simulation for performance testing by modelling inter-arrival and service times.”

 

- Another problem that is observed in the writing structure of the article is the existence of section 5 (i.e., related works). This section should be placed either in the introduction section, when the authors show how other researchers have dealt with such a similar research problem (in this case they should explain what their work innovation is), or this section replaced before section 2. Materials and Methods and give a more comprehensive explanation of the literature process to address this research problem and analyze the literature from this perspective and not be content with simply expressing the work of others.

- The last comment is about the conclusion part of this article. In this section, the authors should state the contributions of their work (not the results), as well as specify who and how can benefit from the output of this article. Writing suggestions for future research, along with writing the limitations of this research, helps authors complete the writing of the conclusion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

> This article examines a very interesting topic, and this topic is
> very trendy and up to date. To achieve the results and findings of
> this article, the authors have chosen a suitable research design.
> In this article, the methodology and how to obtain the results are
> well explained in full detail and all the findings claimed in the
> abstract of this article are the methodological output of this
> article. In the discussion section, the findings of the article are
> analyzed in detail. However, the structure of the article and the
> way the article is written need improvements, after which I can
> recommend this article for publication.

Thank you for your comments on our paper. We have endeavored to
improve the structure, along the lines you have suggested. Major
changes to the text have been highlighted in blue, for ease of
identification.

> - The first point is about the title of the article. The use of
> acronym in the title of the article should be avoided, and full
> letters should be written.

We have retitled the paper, avoiding any acronyms.

> - The second point about the title of the article, why is the word
> journal mentioned in the title? The title of the article should be
> such that it covers the research goals and findings of the article,
> and the reader knows what findings he / she expects by reading the
> title of the article.

Apologies - we have corrected this.

> - The third point is about the use of verb tenses in the abstract
> of the article. In the abstract of the article, the rule is that
> when the sentences are about the objectives, methodology, and results
> of the article, the simple past tense should be used.

We have adjusted our use of tense in the abstract.

> Although the article is written very explicit, the structure of
> the article is not academically appropriate. for example:
> - In the introduction section, the authors should mention the
> need for this scientific research using references. In other words,
> they must first identify the research problem of this article, and
> then prove by citing the references that this research problem is
> very important by providing credible reasons to substantiate their
> claim. They also must say how the other researchers addressed the
> same research problem, and then they must justify the novelty of
> their work (i.e., why they think their solution to this research
> problem is distinguished compared with the current solutions in the
> literature). This is while the authors have written the following
> sentence only in lines 65-66, which is not enough:
> “We believe that this low level modelling of EDI messages has not
> been investigated before and will strengthen performance testing
> for Supply Chain organisations.”

We have presented an review of previous work, and now set this in
more context more complete context.

- I did not understand the philosophy of the last paragraph of the
> introduction (i.e., lines 69-77). The introduction section should
> be an introductory to the article and state what the research problem
> is, and why it is important to address this research issue, and how
> others addressed this problem, and why the authors believe that
> their solution (what is article innovation?) is unique, and who can
> benefit from the output of this article? However, only one sentence
> is written in lines 56-57 as follows, which is not enough:
> “This paper proposes a framework that DevOps can leverage, allowing
> simulation for performance testing by modelling inter-arrival and
> service times.”

We have removed much of this paragraph, as the material was more
appropriate to a discussion or conclusion. We hope that the revised
presentation is clearer.

> - Another problem that is observed in the writing structure of
> the article is the existence of section 5 (i.e., related works).
> This section should be placed either in the introduction section,
> when the authors show how other researchers have dealt with such a
> similar research problem (in this case they should explain what
> their work innovation is), or this section replaced before section
> 2. Materials and Methods and give a more comprehensive explanation
> of the literature process to address this research problem and
> analyze the literature from this perspective and not be content
> with simply expressing the work of others.

We have moved much of this section back to the "Background and
Previous Work" subsection of the introduction.

> - The last comment is about the conclusion part of this article.
> In this section, the authors should state the contributions of their
> work (not the results), as well as specify who and how can benefit
> from the output of this article. Writing suggestions for future
> research, along with writing the limitations of this research, helps
> authors complete the writing of the conclusion section.

We have redrafted the conclusion with these points in mind.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented an interesting paper about EDI messages and based on their detailed analysis they seem to have a great knowledge of this topic. However, this paper needs several improvements in order to become suitable for publication.

1. The abstract exceeds the 200-word limit.
2. The paper extends the previously published conference paper but it contains many previously published parts and so there are plagiarism issues. More specifically several figures and tables are exactly the same and need to be either removed or altered. Also, some parts of the text, most importantly section 5, have a significant amount of plagiarism and need to be rewritten.
3. The introduction needs to be expanded and provide the necessary research background, i.e. the supply chain challenges and advancements. The following papers are suggested to be studied and referenced:
   1. Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P., Konstantakopoulos, G. D., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Tatsiopoulos, I. P. (2021, September). An approach for creating a blockchain platform for labeling and tracing wines and spirits. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (pp. 81-89). Springer, Cham.
   2. Caiado, R. G. G., Scavarda, L. F., Azevedo, B. D., Nascimento, D. L. D. M., & Quelhas, O. L. G. (2022). Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Industry 4.0 for Operations and Supply Chain Management—A Framework Headed toward the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability, 14(2), 830.
   3. Hahn, G. J. (2020). Industry 4.0: a supply chain innovation perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1425-1441.
   4. Gayialis, S. P., Kechagias, E. P. & Konstantakopoulos, G. D., (2022). A city logistics system for freight transportation: integrating information technology and operational research. Operational research, 1-30. doi: 10.1007/s12351-022-00695-0
   5. Manavalan, E., & Jayakrishna, K. (2019). A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 925-953.
4. Figures 1,2,4,22 & Tables 1,2,3,4,23,24 need to be further analysed
5. In several parts of the paper, authors mentioned they developed a framework. This framework is nowhere to be found and needs to be added to the paper and thoroughly analyzed. The statistical analysis on its own cannot be published without presenting the framework that is supposed to be the outcome of this research.
6. Related work should be expanded and moved after the introduction section and should explain how this works improves the previous research efforts. The authors should explain the research gap, and what new has their work to offer compared to previous ones.  
7. There are a lot of grammatical and syntax errors that need to be fixed. 

Author Response

> The authors have presented an interesting paper about EDI messages
> and based on their detailed analysis they seem to have a great
> knowledge of this topic.

We thank the reviewer for their comment.

> However, this paper needs several improvements in order to become
> suitable for publication.

We have highlighted significant changes to the text to help the
reviewer identify changes. We detail our response to the points
below.

> 1. The abstract exceeds the 200-word limit.

We have redrafted the abstract to fit within the 200-word limit.

> 2. The paper extends the previously published conference paper
> but it contains many previously published parts and so there are
> plagiarism issues. More specifically several figures and tables are
> exactly the same and need to be either removed or altered. Also,
> some parts of the text, most importantly section 5, have a significant
> amount of plagiarism and need to be rewritten.

We note that this journal version of the paper is an invited extension
of the previous paper at the FRUCT paper. Nonetheless, we have
reworded a number of the sections mentioned by the reviewer in order
to reduce duplication.

> 3. The introduction needs to be expanded and provide the necessary
> research background, i.e. the supply chain challenges and advancements.
> The following papers are suggested to be studied and referenced:

We have read these papers, and thank the reviewer for pointing out
the relevance to Industry 4.0. We have included appropriate references,
mainly within Section 1, where we have moved most of the discussion
of related work.

> 4. Figures 1,2,4,22 & Tables 1,2,3,4,23,24 need to be further analysed

We have included additional discussion of these figures. We have
also further discussed Tables 1,2,3,4 which are now Tables 2,3,4,5.
The last table in the original paper was Table 22, so we assumed
that the reviewer intended the last two tables, and have provided
additional discussion.

> 5. In several parts of the paper, authors mentioned they developed
> a framework. This framework is nowhere to be found and needs to be
> added to the paper and thoroughly analyzed. The statistical analysis
> on its own cannot be published without presenting the framework
> that is supposed to be the outcome of this research.

This was a definite gap in our presentation. We now give a breakdown
of the steps of our framework in Section 2.1.

> 6. Related work should be expanded and moved after the introduction
> section and should explain how this works improves the previous
> research efforts. The authors should explain the research gap, and
> what new has their work to offer compared to previous ones.

We have moved the review of previous literature to the end of the
Introduction, and we hope we have identified the research gap more
clearly.

> 7. There are a lot of grammatical and syntax errors that need to
> be fixed.

We have reread the paper and hope we have caught any grammatical
errors, syntax problems and colloquial uses. The editorial office
requested a quick turn-around of our revisions over Easter and some
of the co-authors have been on annual leave during the period, so
we hope that we have not missed any!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my concerns and previous comments are addressed properly, therefore, I recommend this article for publication in the current form. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

According to the revised manuscript and authors' comments, I accept the paper for publication. Best regards. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.