Knowledge-Based Engineering in Strategic Logistics Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Brief summary: The article deals with the application of knowledge-based engineering (KBE) and ontological knowledge bases in the field of strategic logistics planning. It presents the Logistics Knowledge Management System (LKMS) as a tool that collects, organizes and makes available experience from process improvement projects (e.g. Six Sigma). The authors use qualitative research, literature analysis, ontological modeling and a case study to demonstrate the benefits of LKMS for decision-making, sustainability and education. Main problems: Lack of empirical validation – Although the case study is described in detail, the article does not provide quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of LKMS in practice (e.g. improvement of KPIs after the system was implemented). Limited scope of application – The solution was tested only on an academic-industrial project. There is no analysis of applicability in larger or more diverse enterprises. Unclear comparison with alternative approaches – The authors state the advantages of ontologies over traditional approaches, but there is no in-depth discussion or benchmark against other knowledge management tools (e.g. BI platforms, ERP systems). Secondary issues: Overcrowding of the text with technical details – In some parts (e.g. Appendix B), there is a lot of technical notation (ENCL) without accompanying interpretation, which can be challenging for readers outside the domain. Graphic support – Images such as the concept map or the LKMS diagram would deserve a more detailed description or captions for a better understanding of the context. Language editing – There are minor stylistic and typographical inaccuracies in the text that would be worth removing (e.g. “Although, the long-term impact…”). Conclusion: The article presents an innovative and important approach to sustainable knowledge-based logistics planning. To enhance its value, I recommend supplementing the empirical data, expanding the discussion of alternatives, and slightly modifying the technical presentation to make it more accessible to a wider audience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You for Your valuable comments and suggestions!

Main problems: 

ad 1. Lack of empirical validation – We could name a few, however the article is not meant to elaborate on the application examples. Hence, we outlined the experience lifecycle and presented a single elaborate use case. The article does not provide quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of LKMS in practice, since the improvement of KPIs mainly pertains to its applications in business improvement projects and not the system itself. 

ad 2. Limited scope of application – The solution was tested only on an academic-industrial project and as such presents a proof of concept. It is yet to prove its applicability in larger or more diverse industries. 

ad 3. Unclear comparison with alternative approaches – This has been addressed by an additional section in the beginning of the Tools section with an appropriate reference to a comparison of alternative approaches.

ad 4. Overcrowding of the text with technical details – Since it has been dealt with before, the notation, originally presented in Appendix B, has been removed from the article leaving only a reference to a previous article on the construction of experiences using ENCL's predicate logic. 

ad 5. Graphic support – Images such as the concept map or the LKMS diagram have received more descriptive captions for a better understanding of the context. 

ad 6. Language editing – The mentioned stylistic and typographical inaccuracies have been addressed. 

ad 7. To enhance its value, the article has been extended by the comparison of alternative approaches of knowledge management and an appropriate conclusion on the outcomes.

The changes in the article are marked yellow, the additions green. The annotations mark the spots where parts of the manuscript have been removed.

Best regards,

R. Gumzej

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a highly relevant issue- the use of knowledge base engineering in knowledge management. The authors examine the integration of knowledge-based engineering into strategic logistics planning. The presented LKMS should be assumed as novel and impactful because it emphasizes the contextual relevance of information, making the knowledge base highly applicable to real-world operational requirements. Nevertheless, there are severe shortcomings in the article that should be fixed.

Critical comments on the article:

 

Abstract:

• The main objective defined in the abstract (to highlight the benefits of knowledge-based engineering over the established ontological logistics knowledge base) is not the same as the main objective in the conclusion (to implement knowledge-based engineering in smart production). However, the main research question defined in lines 212–215 (to prove that “ontological institutional knowledge base management is more efficient, adaptable, and sustainable”) is distinct from both objectives. It is necessary to unify the article’s objective and formulate the research question consistently with that objective.

 

Introduction and Literature Review:

The processing of information from 54 sources provides a solid foundation for analysing the current state of knowledge in the addressed issue. The literature review is also presented in the context of sustainability. Critical remarks on this section:

• References should be numbered consecutively in ascending order.
• In part of the text (from lines 80 to 99, including Table 1), the authors partially present their own research, which is unusual to include in the introduction.
• Table 1 is not located in the section where it is referenced.
• The chapter titled “Literature Review” typically presents an overview of scientific literature related to the topic. In this case, the authors present their own research - a contextual analysis of selected research papers using Leximancer software, which is confusing. I recommend renaming the chapter.

Materials and methods:

There is a dual purpose:

• While the knowledge management system was originally meant for companies, the authors present it in several places as intended also for use in logistics education. However, the LKMS use in the context of the educational process is not explained anywhere. The question is also whether the system is effective for both purposes, as the needs and contexts of industry applications and educational settings can differ significantly.
• Figure 2 is not well-readable since many elements overlap.

Results

The use-case is described very abstractly; the steps and individual methods are presented in general terms. For a better understanding and idea, the authors could have been more specific about what methods and tools were used to analyse and eliminate the shortcomings. A more specific description would increase transparency and improve reproducibility and scholarly integrity. In its current form, it is very abstract.

 

Discussion, Conclusion

• In conclusion, the authors claim that their LKMS has been confirmed, and the knowledge base is more efficient, adaptable, and sustainable. This confirmation was performed via a use-case student’s project. If the use-case was only simplified for teaching, it may not be strong enough to support claims about enterprise-level application. These research limitations should be clearly stated.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You for Your valuable comments and suggestions!

In response to Your concerns: 

ad 1. Abstract: the goal of the article has been unified - "to highlight the benefits of knowledge-based engineering over the established ontological logistics knowledge base in smart production, based on the predisposition that ontological institutional knowledge base management is more efficient, adaptable and sustainable". 

ad 2. Introduction and Literature Review: the references have been ordered alphabetically, since this this form is usually easiest to navigate, however, they have now been renumbered in order of appearance. The chapter titled “Literature Review” has been renamed to "Research Placement".

ad 3. Materials and methods: the dual purpose of the LKMS originates from the fact that it is hosted by our institution. Being an educational institution primarily means that the results of our research projects  are also used in the teaching process in the form of use-cases, like the one presented in the article. Figure 2 is meant to give an idea of the structure, hence the overlapping does not affect its comprehensibility. 

ad 4. Results: the methods and tools used to analyze and eliminate the shortcomings have been listed in the description of Table 2. Since the methods are well known, their detailed description would not add to the contents of the article.

ad 5. Discussion, Conclusion: the claim was proven by the article itself, not by the presented use-case. The main outcomes of our research are outlined in the discussion.

The changes in the article are marked yellow, the additions green. The annotations mark the spots where parts of the manuscript have been removed.

Best regards,

R. Gumzej

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The keywords "green" and "sustainable" are insufficiently relevant to the research content.
2. The distinctions between the proposed Logistics Knowledge Management System (LKMS) and existing systems should be demonstrated more intuitively.
3. The table formatting does not meet standard requirements.
4. The abbreviations "KBE" and "LKMS" must be standardized: full term on first occurrence, abbreviation thereafter.
5. Experiments comparing LKMS with traditional knowledge base should be added to more intuitively show the method's advantages.
6. Add a design flowchart for LKMS.
7. Add case studies from multiple industries for analysis to further demonstrate the applicability of LKMS.
8. The contribution is not clear, the author should summary somewhere.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You for Your valuable comments and suggestions!

In response to Your concerns: 

ad 1. The keyword "green" has been removed and "sustainable" retained. It can imply the use of greening measures, as suggested in the discussion, however, they are not explicitly dealt with in the article.

ad 2. The distinctions between the proposed Logistics Knowledge Management System (LKMS) and existing systems is discussed in the beginning of the Tools section with an appropriate reference to a comparison of alternative approaches. 

ad 3. The table formatting originates from the MDPI template. 

ad 4. LKMS design is given in Figure 2 and further description in Appendix A.

ad 5. Adding more case studies would not significantly add to the contents of the article. Hence, a single comprehensive, multi-level use case was chosen.

ad 6. The contribution of the article ("to highlight the benefits of knowledge-based engineering over the established ontological logistics knowledge base in smart production, based on the predisposition that ontological institutional knowledge base management is more efficient, adaptable and sustainable") is stated in the abstract, proven in the discussion and summarized in the conclusion.

The changes in the article are marked yellow, the additions green. The annotations mark the spots where parts of the manuscript have been removed.

Best regards,

R. Gumzej

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although it presents a good research paper on logistics planning, in its current form, the article is outside the scope of the journal, since nothing about the environment is addressed.

I suggest severe modifications to the entire structure of the text, from the introduction to the results and discussions, so that it can be adapted to a sustainability journal.

The introduction must present the impact of logistics on the environment. These impacts must be addressed in the results and discussions.
To this end, the methodology must describe where this item will be addressed in your logistics planning, emphasizing your work on them.

Regarding formatting:

the numbering should be in the order in which it first appears. In other words, articles cited in the introduction as 32 and 41 should be changed to numbers 1 and 2 and the same should be done for the other articles cited... the numerical order is that of their appearance in the text and not alphabetical.

The title of the figures should come below them. The text inside figure 2 is very small, I had to enlarge it by 200% to be able to power it.I also found items that overlapped others, and I couldn't read what they meant. Please improve this urgently.

Enviromental focus:

This figure (2) is very important for your discussion. So, looking at it in detail, I found that you only present 1 of the more than 40 items that are focused on the environment. It is warehouse cost analysis

It is need you to emphasize the environmental parameters of your planning in an item of the results and discussions. I believe you can improve your text by also addressing items such as: Cycle stock, traffic design, operations, and Warehouse cost analysis

I suggest that you open the items, detailing the environmental impacts of each one with emissions, waste production and energy and water consumption during transportation, maintenance, operations (operation of equipment and machines) and even social impacts in these processes. Also suggest how your planning minimizes such impacts and how this affects the total costs of the processes, as well as how it was done to minimize such costs with the least possible environmental impact.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You for Your valuable comments and suggestions!

In response to Your concerns: 

ad 1. The keyword "green" has been removed and "sustainable" retained. It can imply the use of greening measures, as suggested in the discussion, however, they are not explicitly dealt with in the article. The contribution of the article ("to highlight the benefits of knowledge-based engineering over the established ontological logistics knowledge base in smart production, based on the predisposition that ontological institutional knowledge base management is more efficient, adaptable and sustainable") is stated in the abstract, proven in the discussion and summarized in the conclusion.

ad 2. We chose alphabetical ordering of the references, since it is usually easiest to navigate. This has been corrected and all current references are cited in the article.

ad 3. The formatting of figure and table captions originates from the MDPI template. 

ad 4. Figure 2 is meant to give an idea of the structure, hence the overlapping does not affect its comprehensibility.

ad 5. The environmental parameters and the associated methods are listed in Appendix A.

The changes in the article are marked yellow, the additions green. The annotations mark the spots where parts of the manuscript have been removed.

Best regards,

R. Gumzej

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the edits are made, the article is suitable for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You for Your valuable comments and suggestions!

We have made the final edits and hope that the article is now suitable for publication in the journal.

The changes in the article are marked yellow. 

Best regards,

R. Gumzej

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check thegramarical errors through the  paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You for Your valuable comments and suggestions!

We have checked the gramar in the paper and hope that it is now ready for publication.

The changes in the article are marked yellow.

Best regards,

R. Gumzej

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf