Industrial Revolutions and Automation: Tracing Economic and Social Transformations of Manufacturing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a review on industrial revolution especially with respect to automation and supply chain operations. However, the title of the paper is about focusing on the economical and societal impact of innovative manufacturing.  The following issues still need to be clarified.

• What is innovative manufacturing and how it is related to the study provided?
• The information presented is focused more on robotics and industrial revolutions. Some more elaborations are to be provided with respect to social and economic impact.  Categorization of the papers with this respect would provide better understanding and overview of the findings. 
• Manufacturing is not all about robotics or respective processes and supply chain, there is still a need to highlight the progress with respect to design, planning, control and impact over the tool developers etc. The paper seems to neglect those which could improve the scientific merits.
• Due to recent developments and progress the vision of the manufacturing has changed from man/machine/material/method and money to product, intelligence, communication and communication network. The paper seems to neglect this change and should make this point clear.
• It would still be beneficial for the author to provide a clear research road map for those who would like to search and carry out research on feature manufacturing systems. The direction paper presents for the research community is not satisfactory enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID Societies-3495222

Title: Beyond innovative manufacturing: A literature review focusing on the economical and societal impact

Summary: The paper explores the evolution of automation from the First Industrial Revolution to the current Fifth Industrial Revolution, emphasizing robotics and AI's role in enhancing manufacturing productivity and precision. It addresses economic benefits, job displacement, and the necessity of workforce reskilling, highlighting the balance needed for sustainable growth.

The manuscript must be revised carefully, as major review requirements are outlined below.

1. First, I suggest the authors revise the manuscript title to be more scientific. Currently, it is not clear.

2. The research questions should be added in the Research Methodology section.

3. Additionally, I observed that the author’s study does not identify any research gaps. Could you clarify the purpose of this study and outline any existing research gaps that should be addressed?

4. Please do not write subsections in a double format, such as 'Generation 3 - Extending Interaction.' This is confusing and not scientific.

5. I also suggest that the authors check recent papers with a strong academic structure, including figures, tables, and datasets. Please review the structure and cite this paper in your literature review. “The Sustainability of Economic and Business Practices Through Legal Cooperation in the Era of the Hainan Free Trade Port and Southeast Asian Nations: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2050”

6. In Section 4, 'Automation in Supply Chain and Logistics,' adding a table or figure would enhance understanding of the content. Without figures and tables, the material feels dry and boring.

7. The Findings and Conclusion sections should be clearly separated. Additionally, the content in this section is unclear and appears to repeat information found in other sections of the manuscript. Please revise it carefully to enhance clarity and remove any redundancy.

8. Future research directions are better; please remove the topics.

Good Luck to the authors 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is exceptionally well written. I have some small suggestions.

Page 11 line 511

human-centred approach puts basic human needs and interests at the centre of the production process

Yes, this is theoretically imagined but take just Amazon as an example and you will see that not all companies are people centred. Since this is literature review maybe you should include both chains of taught – human centric and profit centric

Page 12 line 552

In general, Industry 5.0 responds to the social impacts of Industry 4.0 by bringing people back into manufacturing and trying to make it human-centered, alongside high-level and advanced automation.

There is no reference, so I guess this is your opinion. Then it should be rephrased: Instead of Generally, (which you cannot assume on 32 papers) .. Based on our literature review it seems that ….

Page 13 line 596

which is crucial for applications in manufacturing

This chapter is exclusively about supply chain which makes it a bit out of focus of the paper and then you add this sentence about manufacturing.  Seems a bit hasty.

Please provide references for Amazon and DHL in their warehouses: you cite “Technical, Economic and Societal Effects of Manufacturing 4.0: Automation, Adaption and Manufacturing in Finland and Beyond” from year 2020, yet different Amazon and DHL warehouses are at different level of automation. Please be more precise. The title of the paper you cite is about manufacturing and you talk about Amazon and DHL warehouses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) seem to take comments into account except the following one.  "”Due to recent developments and progress the vision of the manufacturing has changed from man/machine/ material/method and money to product, intelligence, communication and communication network. The paper seems to neglect this change and should make this point clear.“  They stated this as a research gap. This is not enough for such a review paper. When we talk about the future manufacturing system we cannot disregard the paradigm shift.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the continuous constructive feedback and valuable suggestions from the reviewers. Their insightful comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of the reviewers’ comments. In addition, we have prepared a version of the article highlighting the differences, which we have attached for the reviewers.

Response to Reviewer 1
1. ”Due to recent developments and progress the vision of the manufacturing has changed from man/machine/material/method and money to product, intelligence, communication and communication network. The paper seems to neglect this change and should make this point clear.“

Response: We have expanded the discussion on Industry 5.0 to highlight the shift from the traditional 5M manufacturing model to a paradigm centered on product, intelligence, communication, and communication networks. A new table (Table 1) has also been added to the manuscript that summarizes the transition from the traditional 5M manufacturing model to the Industry 5.0 paradigm.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has revised the scientific according to the reviewer's suggestions; it can be published now.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the continuous constructive feedback and valuable suggestions from the reviewers. Their insightful comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of the reviewers’ comments. In addition, we have prepared a version of the article highlighting the differences, which we have attached for the reviewers.

Response to Reviewer 2
1. ”The paper has revised the scientific according to the reviewer’s suggestions; it can be published now.“
Response: Thank you for your positive evaluation and recommendation; we appreciate your constructive feedback and are glad that our work is well-received.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is improved enough and can be published.