Integrated Quality Management for Automotive Services—Addressing Gaps with European and Japanese Principles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the article compared to the original version, which is evident in the emphasis on strategy and the importance of the research.

As someone primarily engaged in the automotive industry, I recognize that some important aspects have not been highlighted, such as the application of the IATF 16949 standard. I would suggest that the authors analyze the impact of this standard on automotive practices in Europe and Japan. It would be sufficient to simply point out whether there are any differences.

Likewise, FMEA, as an important tool mandated by the standard in the automotive industry, is not mentioned anywhere. Please analyze the significance of FMEA (see https://doi.org/10.31803/tg-20250221185213) and whether its application differs between Japan and Europe. Is the Risk Priority Number approach used, or the Action Priority approach? My suggestion is that the paper be accepted, but only after the proposed revisions are made. The paper omits important aspects of the automotive industry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic—the integration of Kaizen, Lean Manufacturing, Poka-Yoke, and European quality frameworks in automotive services—aligned with current trends in quality management and sustainability. However, substantial revisions are needed to enhance its scientific value.

1. Clearly state the research objective, describe the intervention design, define KPIs with formulas and data sources, and explain data collection and handling procedures. Specify the European quality framework used and its integration with Japanese principles.

2. The pre–post design without a control group limits causal inference. Acknowledge these limitations, and consider more robust designs or extended time series. Use appropriate statistical methods with complete reporting (sample size, CIs, p-values).

3. Compare explicitly with previous studies to highlight specific innovations, and include recent relevant references.

4. Compare results with literature, justify the magnitude of improvements, and only make claims (e.g., customer satisfaction, sustainability, SDGs) supported by evidence

With these improvements, the article could become a solid reference for both academics and practitioners in the field. Detailed recommendations are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve English clarity, ensure consistent terminology, and consider adding a comparative table linking tools to SDGs 9 and 12.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that the paper has improved substantially. The objectives are now clearly stated, and the work appropriately addresses each of them.

 

I would like to provide a few additional observations:

 

1. The title of the article is “Integrated Quality Management for Automotive Services - 2 Addressing Gaps with European and Japanese Principles”. In addition, lines 1106–1108 state: “Furthermore, the study fills a documented literature gap by offering KPI-based evidence in automotive services where theoretical applications of Lean and Kaizen were often detached from data”. I suggest that the authors explicitly provide a brief list of the gaps identified in the literature, as these are not clearly articulated in the manuscript.

 

2. In the conclusions, the authors state: “This research also advances the field by proposing a replicable framework of integrated quality management that combines European regulatory structures with Japanese operational philosophies”. While the paper offers a detailed description of the proposed system elements, it does not present a diagram that visually represents the referenced “framework.” I recommend including such a diagram to enhance clarity and strengthen the contribution.

 

3. A minor issue: In Figure 1, the meaning of Q1, Q2, etc., should be explained for completeness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing the manuscript “Integrated Quality Management for Automotive Services – Addressing Gaps with European and Japanese Principles.” The conclusions are clear and well-structured; however, I would like to suggest two brief adjustments to enhance consistency with the abstract and the results section:

1. Recover the methodological validation in the conclusions. The abstract highlights the mixed-methods design, the pre–post analysis, and the correlation between tools and indicators. I recommend adding a sentence in the conclusions to reaffirm this validation (while acknowledging the absence of a control group), so that the analytical robustness is explicitly reflected.
2. Include the main result from each service center (A and B) in a concise statement. This would align the conclusions more closely with the empirical emphasis of the article and with the information presented in the main text.

In general, your references are well structured, but:

• You need to normalize capitalization in titles (only the first word and the first word after a colon should be capitalized).

• Add missing DOIs (e.g., Fonseca & Domingues, 2017; Azam et al., 2021; Velychko et al., 2020, if available).

• Complete the editorial details for books and standards (e.g., Drucker, ISO).

Kind regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript and consider that the recommendations have been adequately addressed. At this point, I have no further comments or suggestions.

Best regards,

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes some European and Japanese principles and tools used for process optimization, which can be found in books on the subject. It then discusses how these principles and tools could be applied in the vehicle repair service. There is no contribution from a research perspective. Everything stated is based on judgments, which does not mean they are untrue, but there is no supporting evidence. In the Introduction section, it says “There are significant gaps in the literature on quality management in the automotive service industry, ...”, but there is no literature review. It also states “The main objectives of this research are to analyze how the implementation of process monitoring systems can improve service quality in the automotive repair industry, ....”, but there is no proof that service quality is actually improved.

In the abstract it says: "The study demonstrated that the implementation of monitoring systems, combined with the adoption of Kaizen, Lean Manufacturing and Poka-Yoke concepts, and supported by visual management and active employee involvement, can lead to superior service quality management, increased efficiency, cost reduction and process optimization, thus increasing the chances of long-term success of customer-oriented organizations in the automotive service industry," but the paper claims this without providing any evidence that it is actually the case. In summary, it is an article based on judgments. There is no analytical tool that demonstrates the statements made. As a suggestion for a new version of the paper, concrete application cases should be presented, providing actual results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After a comprehensive peer review process, I am pleased to share with you the attached detailed report, which outlines specific strengths and areas for improvement in your manuscript. Overall, your work addresses a timely and practically relevant issue, particularly in the context of quality improvement practices in automotive service organizations.

However, in its current version, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Key points highlighted in the attached review include:

• The need to strengthen the theoretical positioning and originality of the contribution, especially given the well-established nature of the methodologies used.
• A recommendation to explicitly frame the study within sustainability frameworks such as SDGs, circular economy, or environmental impact metrics.
• The importance of expanding and clarifying the methodological section to ensure transparency, replicability, and academic rigor.
• The inclusion of quantitative results, visual data, and critical discussion to support the findings and conclusions.
• A review and correction of references and formatting in line with the journal's style guidelines.
• A request to disclose and revise any AI-generated content, as the similarity report indicates that 24% of the manuscript (especially sections 2.8, 3.1, and 4.1–4.5) may have been produced using automated tools. Particular attention should be given to lines 211–219.

The comments in the review are intended to support the enhancement of your manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and contribution to the field. I believe that with careful revision and alignment with the editorial standards of Sustainability, your manuscript can offer valuable insights to readers and practitioners in sustainable quality management.

We invite you to address the points raised in the report and submit a revised version for further evaluation.

Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to integrate European and Japanese quality management concepts (such as Kaizen, Lean, Poka-Yoke) into the automotive repair service process monitoring system to improve operational efficiency and customer satisfaction. The topic has certain application value, but the academic innovation is weak, and the research is closer to case exploration rather than systematic empirical research. Although the structure is relatively clear and the language is fluent, the lack of transparency of the method and data integrity limits the reproducibility and extrapolation of the research.

The sample size, selection criteria, and industry representativeness of the study were not disclosed, which reduced the statistical power and scope of application of the conclusions. The data sharing statement was vague, lacking original data and statistical test results, and the specific method of correlation analysis was not explained. In addition, the study relied on conceptual frameworks and charts, lacked KPI comparisons before and after implementation, and resulted in insufficient quantitative evidence support. The literature review also focused on the manufacturing industry and lacked coverage of recent research on automotive service digitization and customer experience measurement, which reduced the theoretical frontier.

It is recommended that authors clarify the sample size and selection logic, publicly anonymize the original data and statistical codes, and supplement the before-and-after control or control group experiments to provide quantitative improvement effects. At the same time, the literature review should be updated to include relevant research in the Web of Science in the past three years to enhance the academic value. The overall recommendation is Major Revision, and substantial revisions should be made in data transparency, empirical depth, and literature supplementation to meet the publication requirements.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Integrated Quality Management for Automotive Services – Addressing Gaps with European and Japanese Principles" addresses a very interesting and timely topic related to the automotive industry.

However, aside from the comparison and analysis of concepts from European and Japanese production practices, I do not see any clear contribution. Moreover, the paper reads more like a manual or an article for a non-scientific publication. It clearly lacks scientific soundness. Most notably, there is no application of a concrete, scientifically grounded methodology. Additionally, the defined objectives are too general, and the measurability of their achievement is overly abstract.

Although the paper has some potential in terms of informational value, it does not offer any significant contribution. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript.