Review Reports - Knowledge Management for Injection Molding Defects by a Knowledge Graph

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to congratulate the authors for the manuscript titled as “Knowledge Management Injection Molding Defects by Knowledge Graph”. The article is interesting and deserves the attention of readers. However, there are several points in the article that require further explanation.

Abstract: writing is too generalized. The main theme of this paper is not described in the abstract. Abstract section should be concisely reflected the content and summarize the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions. The abstract needs to be improved. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Also, please add more qualitative and quantitative results of your work.

The paper is well-organized yet there is a reference problem. Your reference list contains only one paper from Applied Sciences journal. If your work is convenient for this journal's context, then there are many references from this source. Besides, references are not enough. Such a work deserves many citations related with the knowledge measurement, injection molding defects, and knowledge graphs. Minimum 10-15 references need to be added and some of them should be discussed.

After analyzing the literature, show before formulating the goal of the "blank" spots. Which has not been previously done by other researchers? You must show the importance of the research being undertaken. Show what will be the new research approach in this article. You need to show a hypothesis. In the last paragraph of the introduction, add scientific novelty and practical relevance. Add a clear purpose to the article.

Are all figures original? Please verify it.

Improve the results and discussion and conclusion parts. The results and discussion section should be widened with more focusing point of the findings. And these sentences should be supported with the literature studies. Results and discussion (especially for subsections 3.1.1i 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2) and conclusion parts are inadequate according to citation and analyze in detail. There should be the importance of the study in detail, comparison results with other approaches in literature, the success of the prediction and computational results.

The section 4 is not discussion it is a conclusion, please correct it according to the following comments. Indeed, there are an impressive amount of results. However, the conclusions section needs to improve with selected and highlighted main findings. In conclusion section, it is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. Please try to emphasize your novelty, put some quantifications, and comment on the limitations. This is a very common way to write conclusions for a learned academic journal. The conclusions should highlight the novelty and advance in understanding presented in the work.

In the 1st paragraph of Introduction, are all sentences written by the authors or are they written with support from studies in the literature? If second one, please properly cite that articles.

Language used in the manuscript is generally satisfying. However, writers should pay more attention of singular / plural nouns. Also, they should control the spell check/ punctuation of words and sentences. Please check all manuscript for language and misspellings. Also, please recheck upper and lower case letter. In addition, spaces should be added between words and numbers. Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in paper.

Improve the sharpness of all low quality images and their text and numbers especially for Figs. 1, 8, 10, 12, 16. Also, almost all the figure captions are not written in scientific perspective their current forms are very short and they are not provide any information about figures.

It should be clearly stated what the injection mold defects are and what kind of investigation the authors intend to undertake with their approach, clearly indicate this in the necessary parts of the article.

Author Response

Yu-Hung Ting, Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Chung Yuan Cristian University
Chung-Li, 32023 Taiwan, R.O.C.
Tel: 886-3-2654353
Fax: 886-3-2654399
E-mail: august@cycu.edu.tw

2022/11/11

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the abstract and added 10 references. At the end of the introduction, we explained the difference between our study and previous related studies. We also confirmed that all figures in the paper are original. In addition, we described more in results and discussions. In the conclusion, we described the research contributions in more detail. Last not least, we have improved the resolution of figures to make them easier to read.

Best Regards,

Yu-Hung Ting

Assistant Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Chung Yuan Christian University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study collects knowledge from books and articles related to injection molding and integrates them through expert opinions to proposes injection molding knowledge graph. This study is of practical significance, and this manuscript can be received after minor revision.

The predecessors have carried out a lot of research work in this field. Why does the author want to carry out this research? Or where is the innovation of this research?

The text in all figures is too small. It is recommended to increase the font size appropriately without affecting the beauty of the figure.

Line 400: It is suggested to replace ‘Discussion’ with ‘Conclusion’.