Model Proposal for Diagnosis and Integration of Industry 4.0 Concepts in Production Engineering Courses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opprtunity to review your work. I can certainly see a paper for publication here but i believe it needs to be imporoved before it is ready for publication.
First and foremost, in the reserach design the purpose of the paper and the methodology need to be very clear to the reader. For exampe, you state that the "this chapter aims to describe the methodogical procedures that have been adopted for the developmet of the aricle. Here, as far as i can see, u conflate the rationale for, and the organization/development of, the chapter (or article?) with the resercah design, which will help u answer your research questios(s). But your purpose was as u conclude, to devleop a model for evaluation the content of production engineering course....These mey very well be confusing to some readers who are not very amiliar your this kind of work.
Second, the purpose and the research question are identical and this could be made clearer to the reader. How u developed your intrument (i.e., the questionnaire and how it is based on the lit review needs to be included, as least with a paragrph or two. Pehaps some readers might be interesed in the items
The literature review, in my opinion, summarizes many,if not all, relevant aspects and help u with your study. But this needs also to be more clearly articulated. (With regard to industry 4, the 4 coutries are only 4, or are there are some more. If yes, the what criteria were used for the inclusion of those 4 coutries? Is it that ony those 4 coutries issued reports?)
Try to make proper paragrpahs by reorganizing a bit, as there are many single-sentence paragrpahs.
I believe with some more work, u can can have a much better paper in terms of articulation and clarity
Thank u again for the opportunity to review this paper.
The results and the conclusion
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
I appreciate all the critics received. I reviewed each one and revised the article. All reviews are in red. In this review I was able to make clearer what is the objective of the article and also the methodology used. I have attached the questionnaire (survey) that was applied (Annex 1) so that you can become acquainted with it. I do not know if it is worth leaving it in the final version of the article, but I leave it for your evaluation.
Regarding the single sentence paragraphs, I kept some of them because the idea is to bring the essence of the discussion of industry 4.0 knowledge to the article.
I hope to have improved the comprehension of the article and I look forward to the return of this second round of analysis.
Regards
Rodrigo
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Several important information was scattered in the article. The authors need to re-organize the content of the article. For my understanding (if it is correct), the authors want to develop an instrument to survey engineers' understanding about industry 4.0. But where did the survey item come from? The authors also mentioned that the qualitative method was adopted. But how was the interview question developed?
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
I appreciate all the critics received. I reviewed each one and revised the article. All reviews are in red. In this review I was able to make clearer what is the objective of the article and also the methodology used. I have attached the questionnaire (survey) that was applied (Annex 1) so that you can become acquainted with it. I do not know if it is worth leaving it in the final version of the article, but I leave it for your evaluation.
Regarding the single sentence paragraphs, I kept some of them because the idea is to bring the essence of the discussion of industry 4.0 knowledge to the article.
I hope to have improved the comprehension of the article and I look forward to the return of this second round of analysis.
Regards
Rodrigo
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank u for your responses. Personally I am satsified with your revisions. Thus i recommend publication in its current from.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors already provided solutions to the problems I proposed in the previous review process. The current format of manuscript is ready to publication.
