Happy and Engaged Workforce in Industry 4.0: A New Concept of Digital Tool for HR Based on Theoretical and Practical Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have a few recommendations:

First of all, congrats about the topic. Really like it. 

1. You use both terms digitization and digitalization. Please explain them and make a distinction between them. Or if you wanted to use just one, correct the paper. In figure 6 you suggest they are synonyms but they are not. You also have references with both terms. From my experience, many confuse the terms. Please offer an explanation for the distinction and choose the terms you think are correct. The literature review needs this, especially because it is your main primary method used in this study.  

2. Also check the guidelines for citation in the text. It is all numbers between the same brackets. So [56,57,65] not [57], [65]. Correct the entire paper

3. Separate Discussion from Conclusion. 

4. Implications and contributions should be included in the Conclusion section as well as Limitations of your study and Future research directions. 

5. References are not in accordance with the guidelines, the year is after the journal in the guidelines. Correct that. 

6. Add a very short explanation or some references for Prisma method where you first mentioned it. Line 106

7. Figure 5 should have a better contrast and clarity. 

Congrats and great success in your career. 

Author Response

We are pleased to resubmit for examination the revised version of our Manuscript. We would like to thank the reviewers for the time spent reviewing the paper, their constructive feedback, encouragement, and suggestions for improving the paper. We have followed all suggestions closely and addressed these entirely in our revision - the changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow background. Additional explanations for each of the comments are presented below.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

First of all, congrats about the topic. Really like it. 

1. You use both terms digitization and digitalization. Please explain them and make a distinction between them. Or if you wanted to use just one, correct the paper. In figure 6 you suggest they are synonyms but they are not. You also have references with both terms. From my experience, many confuse the terms. Please offer an explanation for the distinction and choose the terms you think are correct. The literature review needs this, especially because it is your main primary method used in this study.  

Response 1:

We would like to thank the compliments sent to the paper. The question the reviewer poses is one of enormous care and attention, and for this reason we have decided to use the term Digitalization throughout the paper and, in addition, we have added a footnote (on page 6) that clarifies what is meant by this concept and how it differs from Digitization.

Comment 2:

2. Also check the guidelines for citation in the text. It is all numbers between the same brackets. So [56,57,65] not [57], [65]. Correct the entire paper

Response 2:

Thanks for the comments. References have been corrected throughout the paper.

Comment 3:

3. Separate Discussion from Conclusion. 
4. Implications and contributions should be included in the Conclusion section as well as Limitations of your study and Future research directions. 

Response 3:

Thanks for the comments. The discussion section has been separated from the conclusions. The conclusions section was divided into two subchapters, being Final remarks and Main Contributions and Limitations and Future Work.

Comment 4:

5. References are not in accordance with the guidelines, the year is after the journal in the guidelines. Correct that. 

Response 4:

Thanks for the comments. All references have been corrected

Comment 5:

6. Add a very short explanation or some references for Prisma method where you first mentioned it. Line 106

Response 5:

Thanks for the comments. A brief explanation and reference to the PRISMA method has been added before the figure showing its application.

Comment 6:

7. Figure 5 should have a better contrast and clarity. 

Congrats and great success in your career. 

Response 6:

Thanks for the comments. The Figure 5 has been modified. We thank you for your constructive and very pertinent attitude towards our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper titled: “Happy and engaged workforce in Industry 4.0: a new concept of digital tool for HR based on theoretical and practical trends”

First of all I would like to congratulate the authors for an interesting paper. The authors have conducted an interesting piece of research, dealing with an important topic and the paper is well-written.

I have, however, a few comments that I hope the authors find useful:

1)     I think it would be good that you describe early on in the introduction what the concept of Industry 5.0 means, and how it is different from Industry 4.0.

2)     It would be good for the reader to mention briefly in the introduction what are the main findings and contributions of the paper.

3)     Also, some additional information regarding the methodology would be convenient early on in the paper, so the reader can know what to expect.

4)     I think a table summarizing the main papers found in the literature review could be clarifying for the reader.

5)     I would recommend not including paragraphs with a single sentence, but rather to link them in the previous or subsequent one.

6)     I would also recommend expanding the limitations and future avenues of research, as this can be useful for readers.

Good luck with your research!

Author Response

We are pleased to resubmit for examination the revised version of our Manuscript. We would like to thank the reviewers for the time spent reviewing the paper, their constructive feedback, encouragement, and suggestions for improving the paper. We have followed all suggestions closely and addressed these entirely in our revision - the changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow background. Additional explanations for each of the comments are presented below.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper titled: “Happy and engaged workforce in Industry 4.0: a new concept of digital tool for HR based on theoretical and practical trends”

First of all I would like to congratulate the authors for an interesting paper. The authors have conducted an interesting piece of research, dealing with an important topic and the paper is well-written.

I have, however, a few comments that I hope the authors find useful:

1)     I think it would be good that you describe early on in the introduction what the concept of Industry 5.0 means, and how it is different from Industry 4.0.

Response 1:

We would like to thank the compliments sent to the paper. This first comment that the reviewer makes is very pertinent, and that is why a short text about this difference and the big focus of Industry 5.0 was added in the very first paragraph of the introduction.

Comment 2:

2)     It would be good for the reader to mention briefly in the introduction what are the main findings and contributions of the paper.

Response 2:

Thanks for the comments. A short text has been added in the introduction that states what is hoped to be accomplished with this work.

Comment 3:

3)     Also, some additional information regarding the methodology would be convenient early on in the paper, so the reader can know what to expect.

Response 3:

Thanks for the comments. A paragraph has been added to the introduction to answer this request.

Comment 4:

4)     I think a table summarizing the main papers found in the literature review could be clarifying for the reader.

Response 4:

Thanks for the comments. A summary table of the papers used in the systematic review has been added in the appendix

Comment 5:

5)     I would recommend not including paragraphs with a single sentence, but rather to link them in the previous or subsequent one.

Response 5:

Thank you for your comment and we agree with the observation. Effectively there were very small paragraphs. In those cases, we linked those paragraphs to the previous or the subsequent one.

Comment 6:

6)     I would also recommend expanding the limitations and future avenues of research, as this can be useful for readers.

Response 6:

The conclusions section was divided into two subchapters, being Final remarks and Main Contributions and Limitations and Future Work. The Limitations and Future Work sub-chapter has been expanded from the original one.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments