Digital Twin Lean Intralogistics: Research Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review. I consider the article to be a solid scientific study. The subject matter is interesting, up to date and important. The authors did a good job of presenting the current state of knowledge and conducting logically structured analysis and inference. I consider the aim of the article clearly achieved. The article reads well. Inference based on clearly presented data and in accordance with the proposed methodology. Congratulations to the authors.
However, I have two comments:
- Lines 332 - 335 (Despite the fact that in both WoS and Scopus databases publications whose titles concerned digital twin (H1) or intralogistics (H2) were identified, in the case of “lean in tralogistics” or “lean intralogistic” there was no work meeting the indicated selection criteria was found). What is a difference betwen “lean in itralogistics” or “lean intralogistic”? It is not clear to me - please clarify. Alternatively, I suspect that there may have been an error and the wrong keyword was indicated
- Text on lines 382 - 392 requires editing
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed review as well as for your insightful comments. We have no doubts that they have considerably contributed to the quality of the paper. If you would be so kind, please check the detailed replies to your comments that you can find below. We have made all changes in red in a paper, so all changes we hope are easily visible.
Please see the attachment as we have made a response in the word file
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a systematic review on the topic of Digital Twin technology. The topic is attractive and will be interesting for the MDPI Applied Sciences journal audience. The writing style is good, and it’s easy to read. Both the title and the abstract are informative and relevant, moreover, they match the rest of the manuscript.
The introduction section is well prepared, the process of subject selection clear and adequately motivated.
The study methods are valid and reliable, and suitable for a systematic review. Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented.
Conclusions answer the aims of the study and are supported by references as well as analytical results comparison. The study design appropriate to answer the research aim of the manuscript.
There are some formatting issues, as follows:
- General formatting requires improvement, like aligning of the figures and tables, comments, etc.
- The paper type must be defined as “Review”.
- Some of the abbreviations used in the text before the definition (e.g., IoT, CPS, HRC, I4.0, etc.), and some are not correctly defined. Please proofread the manuscript.
The question (read suggestion) to the authors: The Digital Twin is a trending technological topic and widely used in applied science fields, especially related to electrical engineering, why such databases as IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Explore and IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control).
Overall, the paper is well organized, with a clear and motivated research goal, and will be interesting for the journal audience. I suggest accepting the manuscript for publication in MDPI Applied Sciences after minor revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed review as well as for your insightful comments. We have no doubts that they have considerably contributed to the quality of the paper. If you would be so kind, please check the detailed replies to your comments that you can find below. We have made all changes in red in a paper, so all changes we hope are easily visible.
Please see the attachment as we have made a response in the word file
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
