Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The language needs to be improved

Please, correct:

Rewrite the Abstract and add lines 480-489 (conclusions) in the Abstract

Rethink on the keywords: do they describe the paper precisely? Optimizing and costs are used in the title and, therefore are redundant

Line 35: proverb his should be replaced by author’s name

Lines 36, 38, 63, 102, 182, 308, 346, 358, 395 and 469: Avoid the use of first person proverb we:

For example in line 36, instead of: Therefore, we can consider losses only in a relative way, in mutual comparison…it should be stated: In mutual comparison, losses can be considered only in a relative way). Please, check the paper thoroughly and correct.

Line 102: 7 + 1 should be replaced by Overwork and Overproduction

Lines 138, 180, 193, 213, 223, 281: Source: own research can be deleted

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

based on your valuable comments, we've made some changes. In the appendix, we enclose a revision of the manuscript with the old version to make the changes more visible. Thank you for your help. Hopefully, the changes that were made will fulfil your expectation. 

Kind regards, 

Team of Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of applsci-1481376-peer-review-v1: “Optimization of Costs and Production Process of Fire Dampers”

The subject of the paper is relevant with the topics of the journal. This paper aims in analyzing the impact of the choice of production process control method on the costs and production process optimization.

Although as an example it looks relative straight forward how to tackle the problem, its efficiency and the results are worth mentioning.

It would increase the quality of the paper if the authors were willing to incorporate the following into a new version of the paper:

• Literature review: increasing the number of references used to a great extent.
• Figure 2, increase readability of the figure
• Figure 4, English should be used as explanation language.
• Tables 10, 11 and 12, increase visibility of the graphics

My proposal to the editors is to ask the authors for a minor revision of their paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

based on your valuable comments, we've made some changes. In the appendix, we enclose a revision of the manuscript with the old version to make the changes more visible. Thank you for your help. Hopefully, the changes that were made will fulfil your expectation. 

Kind regards, 

Team of Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx