Smart Logistics Facing Industry 5.0: Research on Key Enablers and Strategic Roadmap

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a well-structured framework for implementing Industry 5.0 in smart logistics, but there are a few areas where it could be improved to enhance clarity and address some potential shortcomings. Here are some aspects that the authors could revise or clarify:

The research problem is well defined and justified. The paper also makes significant practical and theoretical contributions to the smart logistics and industry 5.0 fields. However, few minor issues need to be addressed;

[1] Title: The title doesn't fully capture what the research is about (optional change).

[2] Language issues:  Minor grammar and punctuation issues were noted. For instance:

·        In line 90, the “with content” sounds misplaced. 

·        In line 111, “chapter Two”, “chapter Three” e.t.c. should all be in lowercases. Additionally, there are no chapters in the paper. Replace “chapters” with just the section title. E.g. “The literature review introduces the concepts of industry 5.0 and smart logistics…”

·        In line 126 paradigm shift (the comma between paradigm and shift should be removed.)

·        Line 43-44 Omission: It should read “departing from the predominant focus on automation in smart factories within the industry 4.0, Industry 5.0 advocates FOR collaborative and…”

[3] Conceptualization: The conceptualization of the literature review is a bit vague and needs to be revised:

·        A clear distinction between sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 needs to be made. Alternatively, these two sections can be merged with 2.2.2 since they are all related to environment protection.

·        The eco innovation in 2.2.4 can be moved to 2.2.3 and the resource planning can be merged with human centric factor (2.2.7).

·        Lastly 2.2.10 can be combined with 2.2.7.

[4] Methods: The flow of the paper would benefit from stating the proposed method first (FISM) and then justifying your decision (e.g. to overcome ISM limitations) not the other way around.

[5] Ambiguity in Defining the Relationship between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0: The paper positions Industry 5.0 as complementary to Industry 4.0 but does not clearly differentiate the two in terms of how the enablers transition from one paradigm to the other. This ambiguity could confuse readers about how much of the groundwork from Industry 4.0 needs to be retained or altered to facilitate Industry 5.0.

The authors should explicitly clarify the differences between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 concerning the identified enablers. It would be beneficial to map out which Industry 4.0 technologies or practices need to evolve and how these changes align with Industry 5.0 principles, particularly human-centricity and sustainability.

[6] Over-Reliance on Expert Opinions: The paper’s findings and hierarchical modeling are heavily based on expert opinions, which were used to construct the FISM and perform MICMAC analysis. While expert opinions provide valuable insights, they can be subjective and may not fully capture the complexity or diversity of perspectives in logistics. There is a risk of bias if the expert panel lacks sufficient diversity in terms of industry background, geographic representation, or other factors. (so far, the experts seem to be mostly in academia)

To strengthen the reliability of the results, the authors could incorporate additional data sources, such as quantitative analysis from case studies, industry reports, or empirical data on logistics performance. This would provide a more objective basis for validating the relationships between the enablers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·        In line 90, the “with content” sounds misplaced. 

·        In line 111, “chapter Two”, “chapter Three” e.t.c. should all be in lowercases. Additionally, there are no chapters in the paper. Replace “chapters” with just the section title. E.g. “The literature review introduces the concepts of industry 5.0 and smart logistics…”

·        In line 126 paradigm shift (the comma between paradigm and shift should be removed.)

·        Line 43-44 Omission: It should read “departing from the predominant focus on automation in smart factories within the industry 4.0, Industry 5.0 advocates FOR collaborative and…”

Author Response

Reviewer#1, Point#1:

Title: The title doesn't fully capture what the research is about (optional change)

Author response:

Thank you for your feedback regarding the title. We understand the importance of a clear and accurate title that reflects the essence of the research. The current title, "Smart Logistics Facing Industry 5.0: Research on Key Enablers and Strategic Roadmap," was carefully chosen to highlight the three main aspects of the study: smart logistics, Industry 5.0, and the strategic roadmap. Given the novelty of research at the intersection of smart logistics and Industry 5.0, we believe this title succinctly conveys the study’s focus on identifying key enablers and providing a strategic direction for future development. We appreciate your suggestion and would be open to refining the title if necessary, but we feel the current title effectively captures the scope and contributions of the research.

 

Reviewer#1, Point#2:

Language issues: Minor grammar and punctuation issues were noted. For instance:

In line 90, the “with content” sounds misplaced.

In line 111, “chapter Two”, “chapter Three” e.t.c. should all be in lowercases. Additionally, there are no chapters in the paper. Replace “chapters” with just the section title. E.g. “The literature review introduces the concepts of industry 5.0 and smart logistics…”

In line 126  paradigm shift (the comma between paradigm and shift should be removed.)

Line 43-44 Omission: It should read “departing from the predominant focus on automation in smart factories within the industry 4.0, Industry 5.0 advocates FOR collaborative and…”

Author response:

Thank you for pointing out these language and grammar issues. We have carefully reviewed the text and made the necessary corrections to improve clarity and accuracy.

 

Author action:

In line 86-88:We revised the sentence to improve clarity. We updated the manuscript by 'To address these questions, this study first undertakes the collection, analysis, and categorization of existing literature, aiming to pinpoint the key enablers for achieving smart logistics in Industry 5.0.'

In line 108-115:We replaced references to "chapters" with "sections" in lowercase and provided the section title directly.We updated the manuscript by 'The subsequent content of this study is structured as follows: the literature review primarily introduces the concepts of Industry 5.0 and smart logistics while providing a detailed exposition of the key enablers for realizing smart logistics within the context of Industry 5.0. The methods section describes the detailed steps of comprehensive analysis of the selected enablers by using FISM and MICMAC. The strategy roadmap section outlines the process of drawing the roadmap and analyzes the relationship between the enablers in detail. Finally, the conclusion section discusses the significance of the research and provides directions for future studies.'

In line 128:We updated the manuscript by 'We removed the comma between "paradigm" and "shift" to address the grammar issue.'

In lines 40-42:We revised the sentence to include the missing preposition "for". We updated the manuscript by 'Departing from the predominant focus on automation in smart factories within Industry 4.0, Industry 5.0 advocates for collaborative and symbiotic work models between humans and machines.'

 

(Introduction and Literature Review, line 40-128, Page 1-3)

 

Reviewer#1, Point#3:

Conceptualization: The conceptualization of the literature review is a bit vague and needs to be revised:

A clear distinction between sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 needs to be made. Alternatively, these two sections can be merged with 2.2.2 since they are all related to environment protection.

The eco innovation in 2.2.4 can be moved to 2.2.3 and the resource planning can be merged with human centric factor (2.2.7).

Lastly 2.2.10 can be combined with 2.2.7.

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the conceptualization of the literature review. We appreciate your suggestions for enhancing clarity and organization. While we acknowledge the potential for merging certain sections, we have chosen to maintain the distinctiveness of the identified 13 enablers, which were synthesized from 70 relevant articles in our literature review. Each factor possesses unique characteristics that necessitate separate treatment.Regarding Section 2.2.4 Eco-Innovation and Resource Planning (ERP) and Section 2.2.5 Combine Digital Technology with Green (CDG), we recognize that their titles may suggest similarity due to their shared objective of promoting sustainability. However, we have emphasized the differences between these two factors: ERP focuses on targeted energy efficiency research and innovation needed by governments and enterprises within the framework of Industry 5.0. CDG highlights the necessity for technological transformation to align with socioeconomic development goals while ensuring sustainability. Additionally, we have clarified that Section 2.2.4 (ERP) cannot be merged with Section 2.2.7 Human-Centric Manufacturing and Logistics (HML), as ERP pertains to sustainability, whereas HML emphasizes human-centric aspects.

 

Author action: We have revised Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 to provide a more detailed distinction between them, clearly highlighting their unique contributions to the literature.We updated the manuscript by revising the end of section 2.2.4 (Eco-Innovation and Resource Planning) to state: 'Ultimately, ERP emphasizes the need for a proactive approach to resource allocation and energy efficiency innovations, aiming to create a sustainable operational framework that benefits both the environment and society.'

We also updated section 2.2.5 (Combine Digital Technology with Green) to conclude with: 'In contrast, CDG focuses on the integration of advanced digital technologies to optimize resource usage, highlighting the necessity for innovation that not only enhances operational efficiency but also promotes environmental stewardship through smart technology applications.'

 

(Literature Review, line 213-239, Page 5)

 

Reviewer#1, Point#4: 

Methods: The flow of the paper would benefit from stating the proposed method first (FISM) and then justifying your decision (e.g. to overcome ISM limitations) not the other way around.

Author response: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the methods section by introducing the proposed method, FISM, first, followed by a justification for its selection.

Author action:

The updated version reads as follows:'This study systematically employs FISM (Fuzzy Interpretative Structural Modeling) to model the relationships between factors in complex systems. FISM is an extension of ISM, which was initially proposed by American scholar Warfield. While ISM is an effective method for identifying the presence or absence of relationships between factors, it cannot quantify the strength of these relationships and is not suitable for representing fuzzy or uncertain relationships in the real world. To overcome these limitations, FISM integrates a fuzzy approach to better capture the complexity and uncertainty inherent in smart logistics systems. Subsequently, the FISM-MICMAC method is used for a comprehensive analysis of the selected enablers, ultimately leading to the development of a strategic roadmap for promoting smart logistics.'

(Methods, line 311-320, Page 7)

Reviewer#1, Point#5: 

Ambiguity in Defining the Relationship between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0: The paper positions Industry 5.0 as complementary to Industry 4.0 but does not clearly differentiate the two in terms of how the enablers transition from one paradigm to the other. This ambiguity could confuse readers about how much of the groundwork from Industry 4.0 needs to be retained or altered to facilitate Industry 5.0.

The authors should explicitly clarify the differences between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 concerning the identified enablers. It would be beneficial to map out which Industry 4.0 technologies or practices need to evolve and how these changes align with Industry 5.0 principles, particularly human-centricity and sustainability.

Author response: 

Thank you for your insightful comments. We agree that there is a need to clarify the relationship between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, particularly concerning how the enablers transition from one paradigm to the other.

Industry 5.0 builds upon the technological foundation of Industry 4.0 but introduces a crucial shift towards human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. As Gladysz, et al. [1] suggest, "Technology-driven Industry 4.0 (I4.0) paradigm combined with human-centrism, sustainability, and resilience orientation forms the Industry 5.0 (I5.0) paradigm." Thus, while the technologies in Industry 5.0 remain consistent with those of Industry 4.0, the emphasis shifts to include these additional guiding principles.

In Section 4.2 (Results and Discussion), we have already elaborated on the specific enablers that support these three objectives—human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. To further clarify, the identified 13 enablers in this study not only contribute significantly to the development of smart logistics but also align with the core goals of Industry 5.0 as follows:

Human-Centric Goal: Enablers such as Human-Centric Manufacturing and Logistics (HML), Prioritizing Worker Well-being (PWE), and Customer-oriented Individualized Manufacturing (CIM) drive this objective.

Sustainability Goal: Enablers include Active Government Support (ACG), Sustainable Corporate Governance (SCG), Integration of Digital and Green Technologies (CDG), Eco-Innovation and Resource Planning (ERP), Flexibility in Production Systems (FPS), Value Chain Integration (VCI), Resilience and Sustainability Indicators (RSI), and Stakeholder Collaboration (SCI).

Resilience Goal: Enablers include Risk Prevention for Resilience (RPR), Resilience and Sustainability Indicators (RSI), Information Security Maintenance (ISM), Flexibility in Production Systems (FPS), and Active Government Support (ACG).

1. Gladysz, B.; Tran, T.-a.; Romero, D.; van Erp, T.; Abonyi, J.; Ruppert, T., Current development on the Operator 4.0 and transition towards the Operator 5.0: A systematic literature review in light of Industry 5.0. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 2023,70, 160-185.

Reviewer#1, Point#6:

Over-Reliance on Expert Opinions: The paper’s findings and hierarchical modeling are heavily based on expert opinions, which were used to construct the FISM and perform MICMAC analysis. While expert opinions provide valuable insights, they can be subjective and may not fully capture the complexity or diversity of perspectives in logistics. There is a risk of bias if the expert panel lacks sufficient diversity in terms of industry background, geographic representation, or other factors. (so far, the experts seem to be mostly in academia)

To strengthen the reliability of the results, the authors could incorporate additional data sources, such as quantitative analysis from case studies, industry reports, or empirical data on logistics performance. This would provide a more objective basis for validating the relationships between the enablers.

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the reliance on expert opinions. We appreciate your suggestion and agree that incorporating additional data sources would strengthen the robustness of the results. However, as Industry 5.0 is a relatively new research area, there are currently few experts familiar with its specific principles. The expert panel we selected, while mostly from academia, included specialists with extensive knowledge in relevant industries, ensuring a wide range of perspectives.

We understand the importance of incorporating more diverse viewpoints and data sources, and we will consider this for future research. To address the potential subjectivity of expert opinions in this study, we utilized the Fuzzy Interpretative Structural Model (FISM). This approach helps reduce bias by defuzzifying the expert input, allowing for a more objective representation of the relationships between the enablers. Through this method, we were able to mitigate the potential subjectivity and ensure a more accurate analysis of the hierarchical relationships among the enablers.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article introduces the concepts of Industry 5.0 and identifies the key enablers of smart logistics, concluding with a proposed strategic roadmap.

“To the best of our knowledge, this research represents the first comprehensive and systematic study in this field, offering critical insights into the enablers and strategic roadmap for Industry 5.0 in facilitating the transformation and development of smart logistics.” Furthermore, the 13 pivotal enablers articulated in the article serve as a synthesis of prior research and necessitate additional clarification regarding innovations.

Industry 5.0 emphasizes three key dimensions: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. To which category do the 13 pivotal enablers belong?

Additionally, there are multiple formatting errors in the paper that require further revision.

Author Response

Reviewer#2, Point#1: 

To the best of our knowledge, this research represents the first comprehensive and systematic study in this field, offering critical insights into the enablers and strategic roadmap for Industry 5.0 in facilitating the transformation and development of smart logistics.” Furthermore, the 13 pivotal enablers articulated in the article serve as a synthesis of prior research and necessitate additional clarification regarding innovations.

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the need for additional clarification regarding the innovations presented in the article. While the 13 pivotal enablers referenced in our study do build upon prior research, our approach involved synthesizing and consolidating a large body of literature to redefine and refine these enablers specifically for the transformation of smart logistics under Industry 5.0.

In our study, we analyzed 70 enablers of smart logistics from 51 academic papers and systematically integrated similar factors to propose 13 key enablers. This process allowed us to streamline the previously scattered and overlapping factors, making it easier for enterprises to identify the most critical drivers for smart logistics transformation.

Additionally, our strategic roadmap, along with the subsequent research findings, highlights the sequential and interrelated nature of these enablers. By identifying the optimal development order, we provide enterprises with a clear, actionable framework for implementing these enablers to achieve the best results. This structured approach, combined with the strategic roadmap, represents the innovative contribution of our paper and offers practical value to enterprises aiming to navigate Industry 5.0 effectively.

Reviewer#2, Point#2: 

Industry 5.0 emphasizes three key dimensions: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. To which category do the 13 pivotal enablers belong?

Author response:

Thank you for your insightful question. We would like to clarify that in Section 4.2 Results and Discussion, the 13 enablers identified in this study were categorized according to their alignment with the three key dimensions of Industry 5.0: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience.

To further elaborate, these enablers not only significantly contribute to the development of smart logistics but also align with the core goals of Industry 5.0 as follows:

Human-Centric Goal: Enablers such as Human-Centric Manufacturing and Logistics (HML), Prioritizing Worker Well-being (PWE), and Customer-oriented Individualized Manufacturing (CIM) drive this objective.

Sustainability Goal: Enablers include Active Government Support (ACG), Sustainable Corporate Governance (SCG), Integration of Digital and Green Technologies (CDG), Eco-Innovation and Resource Planning (ERP), Flexibility in Production Systems (FPS), Value Chain Integration (VCI), Resilience and Sustainability Indicators (RSI), and Stakeholder Collaboration (SCI).

Resilience Goal: Enablers include Risk Prevention for Resilience (RPR), Resilience and Sustainability Indicators (RSI), Information Security Maintenance (ISM), Flexibility in Production Systems (FPS), and Active Government Support (ACG).

Reviewer#2, Point#3: 

Additionally, there are multiple formatting errors in the paper that require further revision.

Author response:

Author Response: Thank you for your observation regarding the formatting errors.

Author action:

We updated the manuscript by 'We have thoroughly revised the paper to address all formatting issues, ensuring that the entire document now adheres to the required formatting standards.'

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to develop a strategic roadmap for transforming smart logistics in the Industry 5.0 era by identifying key enablers and providing guidance for aligning them to address gaps in human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience left by Industry 4.0. The paper's subject is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. The paper is well-structured and well-written. It provides an extensive literature review, interesting results, and valuable contributions to the field. However, some minor issues should be addressed, as stated in the following comments.

1.     The authors should highlight the study's main contributions in the abstract. Additionally, the abstract exceeds the limited number of words (250) and it is a bit unbalanced. Try to condense the main elements (background, methodology, results, conclusions, and contributions).

2.     The authors should highlight the research gaps in the literature review. Emphasize what has not been done in the reviewed literature which will be done in this study. You should also review the literature regarding the methods used in the study and justify their use.

3. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. They should clearly and concisely explain the significance of their study, not just in terms of the results, but also in terms of methodology and approach, to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research, when compared with the existing and studied literature.

4.     The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

5.     Some technical issues should be addressed:

a)     There should be at least a couple of sentences between the headings of different levels (e.g. between the heading 2 and sub-heading 2.1).

b)    Some figure captions are too extensive (e.g. for figure 3). Figure captions should be short and informative. If you need to explain the figure additionally, you should do it in the main text, not in the caption.

c)     Tables are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (provided template).

d)    The authors refer to Table 3 in line 370, but this should be the reference to Table 4.

e)     The authors use different fonts in some parts of the paper and some tables.

f)     References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (provided template). For example, the journal names are not abbreviated, etc.

 

g)    Some references in the reference list are missing important information such as volume, issue, or page numbers. Complete all references.

Author Response

Reviewer#3, Point#1: 

The authors should highlight the study's main contributions in the abstract. Additionally, the abstract exceeds the limited number of words (250) and it is a bit unbalanced. Try to condense the main elements (background, methodology, results, conclusions, and contributions).

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the abstract to better highlight the main contributions of the study and address the issue of word count. The revised version condenses key elements such as the background, methodology, results, conclusions, and contributions while maintaining clarity and balance.

Author action:

We updated the manuscript by 'While Industry 4.0 has played a significant role in advancing smart logistics, it has yet to provide adequate solutions to widespread concerns such as human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. The emergence of Industry 5.0 addresses and complements these shortcomings of Industry 4.0. However, there is currently a notable gap in the research on how Industry 5.0 can drive the transformation of smart logistics. To address this gap, this study develops a strategic roadmap that offers a solution to this issue. The research is initiated by conducting a comprehensive literature review with a focus on content, identifying 13 key enablers crucial for realizing smart logistics in Industry 5.0. Subsequently, this study establishes the hierarchical relationship among these key enablers through the application of the Fuzzy Interpretative Structural Model (FISM). Following this, the study employs the Matrices Impacts Croises-Multiplication Appliance Classement (MICMAC) to compute the driving force and dependence of each enabler. The results underscore the significant roles of “Active support from the government” and “Human-centric manufacturing and logistics” as the most critical enablers for Industry 5.0. The strategic roadmap, informed by expert opinions, provides valuable insights for policymakers and implementers while explaining the methods and strategies needed to drive Industry 5.0 transformation in smart logistics. Furthermore, it determines the impact relationship between enablers and the optimal development order, facilitating their synergistic alignment. Ultimately, the strategic roadmap serves as an actionable guide for the logistics industry, steering it toward achieving smart logistics and fortifying competitiveness in the industry 5.0 era.'

(Abstract, line10-28, Page 1)

Reviewer#3, Point#2: 

The authors should highlight the research gaps in the literature review. Emphasize what has not been done in the reviewed literature which will be done in this study. You should also review the literature regarding the methods used in the study and justify their use.

Author response:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have supplemented the literature review to clearly emphasize the existing research gaps. The revised section addresses the lack of guidance on how Industry 5.0 can drive smart logistics transformation and explains how our study fills this gap.

Author action:

The research gap has been added to the literature review. We updated the manuscript by 'In summary, existing research lacks clear guidance on how enterprises can effectively leverage Industry 5.0 to promote the transformation of smart logistics. Additionally, there has been no systematic study of the enablers driving the development of smart logistics under Industry 5.0. Recognizing this gap, our study addresses it by developing a strategic roadmap grounded in the enablers identified for Industry 5.0. This roadmap clarifies development strategies that can drive the transformation of smart logistics, thereby advancing the logistics industry and contributing to sustainable development goals. Furthermore, the FISM and MICMAC methodologies were selected to establish hierarchical relationships and assess enabler dependencies, respectively. These methods are well-suited for dealing with complex systems and provide a structured approach to understanding the dynamics of Industry 5.0 enablers.'

(Literature Review, line160-167, Page 4)

Reviewer#3, Point#3: 

The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. They should clearly and concisely explain the significance of their study, not just in terms of the results, but also in terms of methodology and approach, to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research, when compared with the existing and studied literature.

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comments, we have supplemented the methods section with a detailed explanation of how the FISM and MICMAC approaches used in this study offer innovation and value compared to the traditional ISM-MICMAC methods. Specifically, by incorporating the fuzzy interpretive structural model (FISM), we address the fuzziness and uncertainty in expert opinions, making the results more objective and accurate.

Furthermore, in the results and discussion section, we categorized the identified 13 key enablers according to the core principles of Industry 5.0: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. This classification not only aligns with the requirements of Industry 5.0 in driving the transformation of smart logistics but also provides more targeted guidance on how to achieve this transformation effectively.

Author action:

We updated the manuscript by 'This study systematically employs FISM to model the relationships between factors in complex systems. FISM is an extension of ISM (Interpretative Structural Modeling), which was initially proposed by American scholar Warfield. While ISM is an effective method for identifying the presence or absence of relationships between factors, it cannot quantify the strength of these relationships and is not suitable for rep-resenting fuzzy or uncertain relationships in the real world. To overcome these limitations, FISM integrates a fuzzy approach to better capture the complexity and uncertainty inherent in smart logistics systems. Subsequently, the FISM-MICMAC method is used for a comprehensive analysis of the selected enablers, ultimately leading to the development of a strategic roadmap for promoting smart logistics.'

(Methods, line 311-320, Page 7)

Reviewer#3, Point#4: 

The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

Author response:

Thank you for your suggestions, including the discussion on the limitations of the study. We admit that there are some limitations, and now we supplement them in 5.3 limitations and future research directions.

Author action:

We updated the manuscript by 'While this study offers valuable insights into the enablers of smart logistics in the context of Industry 5.0, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study heavily relies on expert opinions for constructing the FISM and performing MICMAC analysis. Although a fuzzy approach was employed to mitigate subjectivity, there re-mains a risk of bias due to potential limitations in the geographical and industry diversity of the expert panel. Additionally, the research was conducted within a specific timeframe, and given the rapid and dynamic development of smart logistics and Industry 5.0 technologies, future advancements may introduce new enablers or alter the priority of existing ones. Lastly, the literature reviewed in this study, while comprehensive, is based on an emerging field, and some key sources may not yet be widely cited or fully developed. As more research is conducted in this area, the theoretical foundations and findings presented here may require further updates or refinement.'

(Conclusion, line 661-672, Page 23-24)

Reviewer#3, Point#5: 

Some technical issues should be addressed:

a)There should be at least a couple of sentences between the headings of different levels (e.g. between the heading 2 and sub-heading 2.1).

Author response:

Author Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the need for proper spacing and content between different headings and sub-headings. We have made the necessary changes by adding a few sentences between these headings to ensure smooth transitions and clarity.

Author action:

We updated the manuscript by 'In this section, we have reviewed the related works to identify the research gaps and demonstrate the position of the present study. In this regard, We searched key words such as smart logistics, industry 5.0 and enablers in authoritative journals. Then, among them, we selected the relevant articles from 2018 to 2024 and analyzed them in this section.'

(Literature Review, line 117-121, Page 3)

b)Some figure captions are too extensive (e.g. for figure 3). Figure captions should be short and informative. If you need to explain the figure additionally, you should do it in the main text, not in the caption.

c)Tables are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (provided template).

d)The authors refer to Table 3 in line 370, but this should be the reference to Table 4.

e)The authors use different fonts in some parts of the paper and some tables.

f)References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (provided template). For example, the journal names are not abbreviated, etc.

g)Some references in the reference list are missing important information such as volume, issue, or page numbers. Complete all references.

Author response:

Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have addressed each of the points raised.

Author action:

We updated the manuscript by 'For figure captions, we have shortened and simplified them, moving any additional explanations into the main text to ensure clarity and brevity.

(Methods, line 404,, Page 15)

Tables have been reformatted according to the template provided in the Instructions for Authors, including consistent fonts and correct formatting.

The reference to Table 3 has been corrected to Table 4 where appropriate in the text.

(Methods, line 365,, Page 12)

We have standardized the fonts across the manuscript and tables to maintain consistency throughout.

References have been re-formatted using Endnote according to the journal's guidelines, ensuring that journal names are properly abbreviated, and missing information (such as volume, issue, and page numbers) has been completed where applicable.'

(References, line 695-813,, Page 25)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf