Trends and Opportunities in Sustainable Manufacturing: A Systematic Review of Key Dimensions from 2019 to 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines trends in sustainable manufacturing, highlighting the role of technologies such as AI and blockchain. It recognizes existing social and regulatory gaps but tends to restate familiar challenges, providing limited innovative solutions. Some notable shortcomings include insufficient contextual socio-economic analysis and an over-dependence on established technological frameworks without integrating new strategies.

The manuscript tackles the significant issue of sustainable manufacturing, yet it lacks originality. Many concepts, technologies, and challenges discussed have been thoroughly analyzed in previous studies, which diminishes the overall contribution of this paper to the current literature.

- The research revisits widely explored themes like AI and blockchain in the realm of sustainable manufacturing, with literature on these topics extending back several years.

- The paper falls short in analytical rigor.

- It should include tangible examples of how organizations have successfully adopted sustainable practices through modern technologies, focusing on best practices and valuable insights gained.

The gap in technological readiness and policy frameworks across regions raises concerns regarding equitable advancements in sustainability.

- The importance of human factors in technological adoption is vital yet remains underexplored.

- The review points out significant obstacles in merging new technologies with existing systems and addressing organizational pushback. This highlights the need for thorough change management strategies that incorporate both technological innovations and human considerations. For instance, investing in employee engagement and training initiatives can effectively narrow the divide between innovation and its practical application.

 

The difference in technological adoption rates between developed and developing nations presents a major challenge to global sustainability initiatives. The paper proposes targeted approaches to help close this gap, such as creating accessible financing options for SMEs and implementing inclusive digital training programs. 

It references numerous statistics and studies (such as IoT adoption rates) but does so without adequately framing them in broader socio-economic or cultural contexts. While technological advancements are indeed important, the paper may lean too heavily on them as solutions, potentially overlooking the essential role of strong socio-political frameworks and human-centered strategies for achieving sustainability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate revisions required.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper stands out for the thorough review of 134 publications that provides a strong analysis of sustainable manufacturing trends from 2019 to 2023. It successfully incorporates environmental, economic, and technological dimensions so that the work is well aligned with the Triple Bottom Line framework. Being able to include the emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain and the influence of global events such as COVID-19,this paper is both timely and relevant. Its actionable recommendations for policymakers, industry, and academia enhance its practical value and applicability. However, I have the following suggestions for detailed revisions by the authors:

1. The abstract lacks clear, quantitative insights such as the magnitude of sustainability improvements through technologies.

 2. The methodology section should justify why one particular database was chosen, including any limitations.

 3. It is advisable that areas of convergence and possible conflict between green manufacturing trends and Industry 4.0 technologies be critically analyzed.

 4. The author should include a few relevant case studies or illustrations based on nuanced solutions made for different manufacturing contexts.

 5. The author should also include regional analyses to provide an understanding of how sustainability challenges in manufacturing differ in the developing regions from the developed nations.

6. The author should draw meaningful conclusions, like establishing a relationship between technology adoption and sustainability results.

 

7. Provide structured future research work that ranks gaps by urgency and impact, guiding researchers on where to focus their efforts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Remove all grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the author

======================

Review of "Trends and Opportunities in Sustainable Manufacturing: A Systematic Review of Key Dimensions from 2019 to 2023"

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of current trends, opportunities, and critical areas for future research in manufacturing sustainability from 2019 to 2023. Systematic and adequate work has been done on this literature review. But still, some main issues should be addressed before it gets published. Here are some specific comments:

Questions & Suggestions:

1.     On page 2 (part 2.3), It’s suggested to include some relevant articles published in 2024 to show a better picture/understanding of post-pandemic manufacturing sustainability. It will also make this work up to date.

2.     Adopting articles only from Q1-ranked journals is not recommend being one of the inclusion criteria. The rankings of journals vary as time goes by. Therefore, high-quality papers (e.g., highly cited articles) should be considered.

3.     In Figure 1, only 134 publications from Q1-ranked journals seems to be insufficient to show the growth trends on sustainable manufacturing.

4.     On page 5, it’s better to provide the brief descriptions/definitions of the main items such as Green Manufacturing, Lean Manufacturing, Sustainable Supply Chain and so on.

5.     Are there any cross-topic articles? How are the articles classified?

6.     Table 5 is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to provide a systematic literature review on sustainable manufacturing, with a focus on the role of Industry 4.0 technologies (AI, IoT, blockchain, etc.). While the topic is undoubtedly important, the current version of the manuscript suffers from several critical issues related to writing quality, clarity of argumentation, methodological rigor, and overall coherence. In particular, there are strong indications that much of the text may have been produced with generative AI tools without sufficient post-editing by the authors, as evidenced by abrupt transitions, repetitive references, and inconsistent phrasing. These deficiencies significantly reduce the academic credibility and readability of the manuscript.

1. Poor English Skills

-. There are numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistent tenses throughout the manuscript, indicating that the text has not been professionally proofread or carefully edited.

-. Sentences seem incomplete or abruptly cut off. Certain phrases and paragraph structures are repetitive and inconsistent. This stylistic problem makes it difficult for the reader to follow the logical flow of the argument.

2. Suspected Generative AI Authorship

-. The text contains repeated sections that appear to be artifacts typically generated by automated tools or standard template scripts.

-. Several paragraphs read like direct output from ChatGPT or a similar system, with little evidence of genuine human-initiated transitions or critical reflection. A peer-reviewed manuscript requires an original, author-driven voice and a cohesive structure that is lacking here.

3. Low-Quality Figures and Tables

-. Figures have poor resolution, making them difficult to interpret. Legends or axis labels are pixelated or illegible.

-. Tables appear disconnected from the main text, with no clear explanation of how the data in each table were collected or how they support the authors' claims.

4. Methodological Weaknesses

-. The paper purports to be a "systematic literature review" but does not thoroughly describe the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or quality assessment protocols.

-. No rationale is provided for the selection of the 134 publications cited, and it remains unclear how these sources were screened or coded.

-. A truly systematic review requires transparency about the databases searched, key terms used, selection procedures, and critical appraisal methods.

5. Lack of Original Insight and Critical Analysis

-. The manuscript largely lists references and provides superficial summaries without deeper critique or synthesis.

-. Merely summarizing previous studies is not sufficient; a literature review should articulate key debates and knowledge gaps and suggest future research directions based on critical reflection.

6. References Management and Consistency

-. There is often duplication in the reference lists and inconsistency in citation formatting. For example, the same citation number is used more than once to refer to different sources in some parts of the text.

-. Reference style is inconsistent, suggesting that references may have been generated automatically without careful editorial oversight.

7. Formatting and Layout

-. Page numbers and section headings do not always follow standard submission guidelines. There are large blank spaces or abrupt line breaks in the text.

-. The paper references multiple countries (e.g., Brazil, Finland, Indonesia) and industries (textiles, paper mills), but does not consistently provide data sources or methodological details on how these examples were selected.

-. While these anecdotes may be interesting, they remain anecdotal unless supported by robust data or cited studies.

8. Academic Tone

-. Some paragraphs mix informal expressions with overly general statements such as "This is critical to ensuring success" without specifying success in what sense or measured by what criteria.

-. A more precise, academically rigorous tone is needed for publication in a reputable journal.

-. Several parts of the text seem to repeat similar statements about Industry 4.0, the digital divide, and policy gaps, creating redundancy rather than a progressive argument.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please refer to the above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your interesting contribution.

The investigation of 134 papers published between 2019 and 2023 identifies trends and gaps in sustainable manufacturing scholarly research with special emphasis on technological facets such as artificial intelligence and block chain while downplaying the social and policy vistas. COVID-19 has hasten digital adoption, thus the need to bring together technology, governance, and social components. High-important aspects pinpoint the dominance of green manufacturing, the significance of Industry 4.0 technologies, and the need for the combined focus on multiple fields to address different economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability. Subsequent studies should seek to address the question of how to best develop digital twin frameworks and refine the green supply chain, to name but a few areas of attention for future research, policy, and practice.

The work is a review of trends, findings, and research directions in sustainable manufacturing as well as provides strategic directions and policy suggestions for technological advancements.

Therefore, in the present study, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is employed in order to include only papers that meet specific criteria and make an overall systematic review.

The approach is sound, with a step-by-step process that helps to increase the reliability and validity of the presented results.

This has made the document contain very many citations to other previous works to form a good and solid background work.

The English used in the paper is mostly accurate, understandable, and comprehensible, thus helping the reader to grasp the various ideas presented on the various complex issues under consideration.

Some other suggestions are:

   - Clarity and Structure: The structure of the document is good, though there are some ideas to make some of its segments grammatically and, therefore, semantically less complicated. This will be equally helpful in passing your findings across to a simple manner.

   - Technical Jargon: Some sections use aspects that may not be well understood by all the readers depending on their expertise. One can only imagine that brief descriptions or definitions may help make it more accessible.

  - Methodology Explanation: It is advisable that a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted for this study. However, the expanded provision of the criteria for selection as well as the actual evaluation procedure may contribute to the enhancement of the overall credibility of the results that were obtained.

   - Visual Aids: Perhaps including more graphs, charts, or other diagrams could help to bring out trends and results in a more engaging and less tedious manner.

   - Future Research Directions: The recommendations for the future research are useful. Perhaps these suggestions should be followed up on how they might be operationalized or further developed in future research.

   - Language Refinement: While the English is remarkably good, there are plenty of elementary mistakes regarding grammar, and many a time, the sentence formation could have been made simpler.

Kindest regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the presented document, there’s no significant misuse of the English language; the findings of the research are quite understandable. The language used is simple and straightforward and enlightened the reader on complicated concepts and results.

Nevertheless, there are few places the English can be better worded to make the passage clear and easy to read. A number of the sentences are long and may be reformulated or shortened for the sake of better coherence.

Finally, fairly often there are some terms used that could be considered as technical terms, which might be hard for the reader with no background in the sphere. It is possible to explain these terms and, therefore, only make the document more comprehensible to a larger audience.

All in all, the author’s use of English is quite good and comprehensible; though, it is still possible to make some changes to the text to make a much greater impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of my comments in the revised version. Therefore, I recommend this paper for possible acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments	Actions Taken and Revisions Made
The authors have addressed most of my comments in the revised version.	Acknowledged and ensured that all previous comments have been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript.
Recommend this paper for possible acceptance.	No further action required.
Minor editing required to improve the quality of English language.	Conducted a final round of proofreading to ensure clarity, grammar accura

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the author

======================

Review of "Trends and Opportunities in Sustainable Manufacturing: A Systematic Review of Key Dimensions from 2019 to 2023"

Major revisions have been made to address the proposed issues, which sufficiently improve the quality and the contribution of this work. Here are some specific comments:

Questions & Suggestions:

1.     On page 2 (part 2.3), include relevant articles published in 2024 to update the study and reflect post-pandemic manufacturing sustainability.

--Addressed. Relevant articles published in 2024 have been added into the  revised   manuscript. Are these articles not taken into the 134-publication database?

2.     Adopting articles only from Q1-ranked journals is not recommended. Include highly cited articles for a more comprehensive selection.

--Addressed.

3.     In Figure 1, 134 publications from Q1-ranked journals seem insufficient to show growth trends in sustainable manufacturing.

--The author mentioned that additional publications, including highly cited articles, were incorporated to enhance Figure 1 and better represent growth trends. However, the conclusive results (number of publications) are the same as these shown in previous manuscript.

4.     On page 5, provide brief descriptions/definitions of Green Manufacturing, Lean Manufacturing, Sustainable Supply Chain, etc.

--Addressed.

5.     Are there any cross-topic articles? How are the articles classified?

--Addressed.

6.     Table 5 is missing.

--Additional tables were added. But the table is supposed to be cited in order.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment	Response
1. Inclusion of 2024 Articles: Include relevant articles published in 2024 to update the study and reflect post-pandemic manufacturing sustainability. Are these articles not taken into the 134-publication database?	Relevant articles from 2024 have been incorporated, increasing the database to 181 articles. Updates are reflected in the text, Figure 1, and Section 2.3.
2. Expansion Beyond Q1-Ranked Journals: Adopting articles only from Q1-ranked journals is not recommended. Include highly cited articles for a more comprehensive selection.	Highly cited articles outside Q1-ranked journals have been included, broadening the scope and improving representativeness. Relevant additions are cited in the discussion.
3. Representation of Growth Trends in Figure 1: Figure 1, with 134 publications from Q1-ranked journals, seems insufficient to show growth trends in sustainable manufacturing.	Figure 1 has been updated to include additional publications, including highly cited articles and those from 2024, showing robust growth trends.
4. Brief Definitions of Key Concepts: Provide brief descriptions/definitions of Green Manufacturing, Lean Manufacturing, Sustainable Supply Chain, etc., on page 5.	Definitions for key concepts have been added to page 5, enhancing clarity and aligning with reviewer suggestions.
5. Classification and Cross-Topic Articles: Are there any cross-topic articles? How are the articles classified?	Cross-topic articles have been identified and categorized based on overlapping dimensions such as Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy. Section 3.2elaborates on classifications.
6. Citation of Table 5: Table 5 is missing. Additional tables were added, but the table is supposed to be cited in order.	Revision: An additional table was included to complement the narrative on regional variations in adoption and challenges of sustainable manufacturing (Page 17, Table 1, Section 4.4).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Consider using professional proofreading or language-editing services to enhance grammar, style, and academic rigor.
• Use cohesive transition words such as "furthermore," "moreover," or "in addition" to ensure smooth idea flow between paragraphs.
• Avoid repetitive phrases and maintain conciseness throughout the manuscript.
• Replace vague terms like "good" or "important" with specific academic expressions such as "significant," "pivotal," or "essential."
• Integrate examples logically into the discussion without redundancy.
• Provide deeper insights into how the findings align or diverge from existing theories and frameworks.
• Follow MDPI journal author guidelines for headings, subheadings, captions, and other formatting requirements.
• Standardize reference style according to MDPI guidelines, ensuring uniformity in bracket usage, spacing, and punctuation.
• Align all in-text citations and references with MDPI style requirements (e.g., [Reference number]).
• Clearly present the numeric flow of articles removed at each PRISMA stage (identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion).
• Elaborate on the derivation and validation of codes and themes, including inter-rater reliability or coding manual details.
• Strengthen theoretical connections between findings and established sustainability frameworks.
• Include specific policy examples (e.g., EU carbon pricing, US tax credits) and critically analyze their outcomes using relevant literature or case data.
• Discuss trade-offs by comparing sustainability benefits with potential resource consumption or workforce displacement.
• Consistently refine the manuscript for clarity, cohesion, and compliance with MDPI language style.
• Streamline sections to avoid redundancies while maintaining logical progression.
• Deepen critical reflection on the theoretical, policy, and real-world implications of sustainable manufacturing technologies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript must be rejected because it still exhibits significant language problems, including grammatical errors and awkward phrasing, which undermine clarity and overall academic credibility. Despite the authors’ revisions, abrupt transitions and repetitive references persist, and the paper lacks a cohesive academic tone. Moreover, the methodological explanation remains unconvincing, and citations/references are inconsistently formatted. These substantial shortcomings indicate that a major overhaul of writing style, structural coherence, and analytical depth is necessary before the manuscript can be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments	Actions Taken and Revisions Made
Use professional proofreading to enhance grammar, language style, and academic rigor.	Grammar and language style have been revised to meet academic standards through comprehensive proofreading.
Use transition words like "furthermore" or "moreover" to ensure smooth flow of ideas between paragraphs.	Transition words such as "furthermore" and "moreover" were added to improve narrative cohesion throughout the manuscript.
Avoid repetitive phrases and improve language style for conciseness.	Redundancies were removed, and paragraphs were shortened without sacrificing meaning or clarity.
Replace generic terms like "good" or "important" with more specific academic expressions.	Terms like "good" were replaced with "significant," "pivotal," or other specific academic terms.
Integrate examples logically without redundancy.	Examples were updated for relevance and integrated logically into the narrative without repetition.
Provide deeper insights into how findings support or deviate from sustainability theories.	The connection between theories and findings was strengthened in 4.1 Implications of Findings on Sustainability Theory and Practice.
Follow MDPI guidelines for formatting titles, subheadings, and references.	Title structure, subheadings, and referencing style have been fully aligned with MDPI guidelines.
Clearly present the numeric flow of articles removed at each PRISMA stage.	The PRISMA diagram was added in 2.4 Journal Selection Process, detailing numeric data at each selection stage.
Elaborate on the derivation and validation of codes and themes.	A new subsection, 2.6 Derivation and Validation of Themes, was added, including inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa 0.85).
Add specific policy examples and critically analyze their impact.	Policy examples, such as EU carbon pricing and US tax credits, were added in 4.1 along with an impact analysis.
Discuss trade-offs between sustainability benefits and social challenges, such as workforce displacement.	The discussion on workforce skill gaps and reskilling programs was expanded in 4.1 Challenges in the Social Dimension.
Strengthen critical reflection on theoretical, policy, and real-world implications.	Critical refle

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor language issues persist despite proofreading. A professional editing round would ensure greater clarity and polish.

Improved with transition words, but some sections could further refine narrative cohesion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still needs minor refinements for grammar and flow.