A Rule-Based System to Promote Design for Manufacturing and Assembly in the Development of Welded Structure: Method and Tool Proposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
although I read the text several times, as a welding engineer and designer with many years of experience, I cannot find the purpose for which the described activities are carried out. Managing the flow of information between members of the project team in companies depends on the rules adopted in the companies, and often varies significantly. Trying to "throw" it into the system, especially in the case of welded structures, is very complicated for me. Please note that the welding process is a special process. According to this definition, we are not able to predict and ensure the final result of the welding process. Unfortunately, little results for me from the description presented and here I would try to edit it in such a way that it would be more understandable for the reader.
The presented case studies were also not clearly and precisely described / explained. Maybe it is better to focus on one but describe it in a more comprehensible way?
Also, the appendix was not properly commented apart from the two references in the text.
I propose to consider the form of the description of the issue and try to present the issue again.
The quoted reference number 12 also raises some concern - its title and abstract available on the Internet raise concerns - are these works not consistent with the reviewed one?
From the editing notes: please pay attention to the use of capital letters at the beginning of the description of each figure and table.
What is KPI mentioned in Conclusions part?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please see the rebuttal to your review in the enclosed file.
Many thanks for your time and effort.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There are some weaknesses through the manuscript which need improvement. Therefore, the submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this form, but it has a chance of acceptance after a major revision. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1- Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but some details about the welding and case studies must be added. Anyway, a concise abstract is required.
2- Authors must clarify necessity of the performed research.
3- The literature study must be enriched. In this respect, for knowledge-based systems authors must read and refer to the following papers which deals industrial applications: (a) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.11.017 (b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103161 (c) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.09.039 (d) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2018.12.028
4- Figures must be presented in high quality. Some texts in figures are illegible.
5- It is necessary to present the defined rules. Data must be presented for clarification.
6- In its language layer, the manuscript should be considered for English language editing. There are sentences which have to be rewritten.
7- The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please see the rebuttal to your review in the enclosed file.
Many thanks for your time and effort.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the light of the answers provided and the changes introduced to the work, I can say that it is now much better. However, the size still raises concerns that it will be difficult to understand the first time. Thanks for the corrections made, please review the entire manuscript in terms of language and editing.
Out of competition question: can the results of numerical analyses be introduced into the described process?
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved and corresponding modifications have been conducted. In my opinion, the current version can be considered for publication.
