Remanufacturing Assessment of Machine Tools under a Circular Economy Perspective: A Resource Conservation Initiative
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper describes the development of algorithms to assess approaches for reuse of structures for stamping manufacturing processes. It analyzes the literature concerning remanufacturing of machine tools and find a research gap to propose an assessment tool. The topic fits the sustainability goals related to manufacturing processes. However, before accepting the paper, the authors should revise the structure of the paper, that is a mix of a review and a research paper, and they should deepen a few sections. The manuscript is well written, and English is fine.
Please address the comments below:
-Scientific papers must be precise and concise, a few sections must be synthesized (e.g.: sect. 1, 3, 3.1, 3.3, 5)
-Introduction. p.3: literature review should be explained in proper section (Systematic Review). Just key concepts can be provided here.
-There is too much background, acknowledged concepts and obvious information. (sect 3 ll. 9-15, sect. 3.1 ll. 1-30, sect. 3.3 ll. 6-16)
-Results. Please provide details about the case study. There is missing information (use case description, purposes, application, schemes, manufacturing process, machine tools). Especially the description of the tooling mentioned as the “structures” for the ‘Design from Ground Zero’ and the ‘Component Reutilization’ assessment is missing. The only mention is about “a pair of uprights” in sect. 4.4. Please provide a section for the use case description, the set-up of the 2 scenarios, and the relation wrt the variables and the relating values.
-Discussion. Discussion section must be aimed at the discussion of the results. Currently, this seems a mix of a review and a research paper. The literature discussion must be limited to the introduction, to define a research gap and state the aim of the work. The findings between the two scenarios could be discussed. Otherwise, the section could be removed and the considerations could be kept in the Conclusion section.
-Conclusion. Please explain better how the use case does demonstrate the effectiveness of the method.
Additionally, what are the main challenges or limitations that still need to be addressed?
Author Response
The authors sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive feedback have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. In this response letter, we address each of your concerns and suggestions point by point.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached, please.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See attached, please.
Author Response
The authors sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive feedback have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. In this response letter, we address each of your concerns and suggestions point by point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall
Major updates are required, especially regarding the best location for the information and content already in the paper.
Title
To be reviewed (please see comment in the Results section) as it does not really fit the content.
Abstract
Overall the abstract is fine, but it is not clear the link between Circular Economy and Sustainability, and this paper. Can the link be found on the comparative indicators? Are the indicators that are part of the decision-making process related to sustainability or circular economy?
Was this tool validated and demonstrated somehow?
Introduction
Overall, the introduction is too long and consists of too many and too small paragraphs. Reviewing of the structure and content of the introduction is advised.
Could you please elaborate on the number 38 about R-Strategies? Some references found at the end of this review could help define the different R-strategies.
Additionally, the terms “remanufacturing” and “Reusing” are used as alternative terms but in the concept of Circular Economy Strategies, these terms are very different.
The part of the literature review in the introduction mentions only a list of papers, not showing the results of the papers.
It is also confusing that after a very long mention of the specific aim and objectives of this paper, there is a background on the automotive. This should be before the aim and objectives and must be significantly reduced too. As there are too many details that do not add that much value to the paper in their current status.
Literature review
To begin with, it is not clear how this section is different from the introduction with repeatability is an issue when comparing the content of this section to the previous section, e.g. the definition of remanufacturing is found here again.
Also it is not clear what are the differences between the four types of approaches (ETO etc). Could you please elaborate?
Regarding Section 2.2, it is not clear what is the purpose of this section and how the literature review was done for the Circular Economy aspects.
For Section 2.3, the methodology for performing the literature review is missing, such as keywords, inclusion/ exclusion criteria, etc. This information is found later which is not very convenient for the reader.
Regarding the blocks: there is a block missing if there is a direct link between the types of approaches (Section 2.1) and the blocks. Could you please elaborate on why this is?
Research methodology
Section 3.1 should be before Section 2.3, otherwise the questions mentioned before arise.
Plus the purpose of a review could be omitted. Based on the description here, we propose to move 2.1 after section 3, as the content of 2.1 fits better under a results section.
Section 3.2 is a very confusing section, mainly because of the lists of costs and assumptions. So better to create a table with the list of costs and definitions.
Section 3.3: The title is on Sensitivity analysis but the content focuses more on the description of a case study, so either the title or the content should be updated.
Additionally what is really missing is information about the algorithm itself. How this algorithm is developed? Any specific programmes or programming languages used?
Results
First of all, we see the outcome of the literature review as part of the results. Potentially, part of the quantitative analysis could also be part of this section, especially the list of costs, etc. This section is too complicated and confusing and contains information as the objective of the sensitivity analysis which should not be part of the results.
Based on the content in the Results’ section, we do not clearly the link between circular economy and this paper apart from remanufacturing being the study. So the title of the paper is not really fitting.
Discussion
The discussion must undergo a major update as the focus should be on the added value brought by this paper, rather than a discussion about the current literature.
Also, it is not clear the link between the different groups and the results of this paper. Does this paper contribute to all groups? Because right now, it looks like they fit only group 1.
Conclusion
Part of the conclusion fits better in the discussion. Needs major updates and shortening.
Overall
The referencing list should be updated, to include relevant papers, especially when it comes to previous work on circular economy in general and in the automotive sector in particular, but also regarding previous decision-making tools, as the currently presented framework is not considered mature. Please find below some suggestions:
- Circular Economy in general
o Morseletto P. Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2020 Feb 1;153:104553.
- CE in Automotive
o Yu Z, Khan SA, Umar M. Circular economy practices and industry 4.0 technologies: A strategic move of automobile industry. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2022 Mar;31(3):796-809.
- Decision making tools
o Stavropoulos P, Spetsieris A, Papacharalampopoulos A. A circular economy based decision support system for the assembly/disassembly of multi-material components. Procedia Cirp. 2019 Jan 1;85:49-54.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
The authors sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive feedback have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. In this response letter, we address each of your concerns and suggestions point by point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe structure and presentation of the research are unclear. The paper should present first its engineering analysis. Secondly, it should report its case study with experimentation. Thirdly, the findings of the first analysis and case study should be benchmarked. Then, the paper will be complete. Otherwise, the work is incomplete.
It is unclear the data and case study are real or bogus.
Discussion section at 5. Discussion should be fully on the results of this study and its contribution on the body of the knowledge. However, the discussion presented here is mostly on literature review and that can not be accepted.
The conclusion section reports the flow of the study and its structure more than the research’ key contributions. It should be rewritten.
Authors might be the subject matter experts of this topic. However, their presentation of the research is extremely poor. Here is another example: 4.4. Application of Sensitivity Analysis does not talk about the reasoning of the study. Why do we need to do this analysis?
After Conclusions, there should be statements from authors on Conflict of Interest, Contributions, Funding etc etc. Where are they?
Author Response
The authors sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive feedback have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. In this response letter, we address each of your concerns and suggestions point by point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the presented issues have been addressed, I would like to recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The study has been reworked and improved after addressing the comments.
Thank you,
Author Response
Thank you!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevisions are extremely short. Authors did a very quick job and there is no restructuring or depth provided.
I still see that the quality of this paper is poor.
Honestly, I cannot understand the depth and findings of this study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRough. But it is understandable.
Author Response
We appreciate the feedback. It was instrumental in enhancing our work. The authors have delved deeper into the analyses and made modifications to the organization and language of the text. The discussion section has been completely reconstructed to characterize the cross-analysis of the study results and the findings from the literature.
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis reviewer is not able to judge the quality of the revised work!
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for their attention. The revised version has incorporated modifications aimed at clarifying the purpose of the study and the development of result analyses.
