Digital Twin of Food Supply Chain for Cyber Exercises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comment 1: The literature review is poor.  

Comment 2: The authors should highlight the contributions in the Introduction.  

Comment 3: Please provide some data and business cases to support the key points. 

Comment 4: I strong suggest to add mathmatical model in the paper. 

Comment 5: The following paper can be added. 

Li C., Liu Q., Zhou P. , & Huang H. (2021). Optimal innovation investment: The role of subsidy schemes and supply chain channel power structure. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 157, 107291.

Zhai Y., Bu C., & Zhou P. (2022). Effects of channel power structures on pricing and service provision decisions in a supply chain: A perspective of demand disruptions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 173, 108715.

Comment 1: The literature review is poor.  

Comment 2: The authors should highlight the contributions in the Introduction.  

Comment 3: Please provide some data and business cases to support the key points. 

Comment 4: I strong suggest to add mathmatical model in the paper. 

Comment 5: The following paper can be added. 

Li C., Liu Q., Zhou P. , & Huang H. (2021). Optimal innovation investment: The role of subsidy schemes and supply chain channel power structure. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 157, 107291.

Zhai Y., Bu C., & Zhou P. (2022). Effects of channel power structures on pricing and service provision decisions in a supply chain: A perspective of demand disruptions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 173, 108715.

Author Response

REVIEW 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The literature review is poor.  

Response:
The two suggested references have been added. More literature is cited in the Introduction to discuss the use of digital twins and supply chains more thoroughly. 

Comment 2: The authors should highlight the contributions in the Introduction.  

Response:
The subtitle "Aims and Motivation" has been added, so that the contribution is easy to identify. The goal and contribution are also more clearly stated there.

Comment 3: Please provide some data and business cases to support the key points. 

Response:
The requirements are now reflected on in the subsection called "Evaluation". These validate the ability of the solution to answer to the requirements. This also emphasizes the business case of using a digital twin in cyber exercises. There are also screenshots from the system and JSON data listings.

Comment 4: I strong suggest to add mathmatical model in the paper. 

Response:
We appreciate the suggestion made by the reviewer. The nature of this paper is in software design and engineering for a use case. Therefore, the article focuses on the design science process and not on a mathematical model. 

Comment 5: The following paper can be added. 

Li C., Liu Q., Zhou P. , & Huang H. (2021). Optimal innovation investment: The role of subsidy schemes and supply chain channel power structure. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 157, 107291.

Zhai Y., Bu C., & Zhou P. (2022). Effects of channel power structures on pricing and service provision decisions in a supply chain: A perspective of demand disruptions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 173, 108715.

Response:
These two papers have been added to improve the introduction. 

Reviewer 2 Report

comments:

1. expected a brief summary of the sections that make up the article in general.

2. section 2 is weak in content and rationale for the proposal.

3. the results are totally theoretical, expect something like IoT application in your proposal, discrete circuits, simulations, something like that.

4. the conclusion that I can evaluate if there is no foundation in tests.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEW 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comments:

1. expected a brief summary of the sections that make up the article in general.

Response:
A brief summary has been added to the end of the introduction. 

2. section 2 is weak in content and rationale for the proposal.

Response:
Section 2 has been rearranged to include the more relevant parts. In addition, it has been renumbered and renamed "3. Proposed Design". 

3. the results are totally theoretical, expect something like IoT application in your proposal, discrete circuits, simulations, something like that.

Response:
In the revised article, the results reflect the design science approach and illustrate the created artifact more thoroughly. Subsection "Evaluation" has been extended to include screenshots and descriptions how the designed solution fulfills the requirements.

4. the conclusion that I can evaluate if there is no foundation in tests.

Response:
We hope that the extended Results section now evaluates the created artifact sufficiently for the Conclusion section to make sense. The Conclusion also includes discussion about the limitations of the study. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper aims to describe a digital twin of the food supply chain built for a cyber range based cyber security exercises.

The quality of the paper should be improved before publication.

Abstract does not give readers an idea of the overall content of the paper. I suggest that the authors add one sentence each about the research methodology, main results, contributions and limitations of the work.

The Introduction is well organized, provides sufficient background and include all relevant references. I recommend the authors to describe the structure of their paper at the end on the Introduction section.

The research design is appropriate and methods are well described. 

Results are clearly presented.

The Discussion section should be improved. I recommend the authors to compare there results with  results from other similar studies. 

The Conclusion section is missing. The author does not state the contribution and limitation of this study.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

REVIEW 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to describe a digital twin of the food supply chain built for a cyber range based cyber security exercises.

The quality of the paper should be improved before publication.

Abstract does not give readers an idea of the overall content of the paper. I suggest that the authors add one sentence each about the research methodology, main results, contributions and limitations of the work. 

Response:
More clear sentences about research methodology, results, limitations have been added to the abstract. 
(Unfortunately, the yellow highlight macro didn't work in abstract to indicate the updated parts.)

The Introduction is well organized, provides sufficient background and include all relevant references. I recommend the authors to describe the structure of their paper at the end on the Introduction section.

Response:
The introduction has been slightly rearranged, based on suggestions by other reviewers. A paragraph describing the structure of the paper has been added to the end of introduction. 

The research design is appropriate and methods are well described. 

Response:
We thank the reviewer for these kind words. Furthermore, certain sections have been expanded based on the other reviews to more clearly explain these topics. 

Results are clearly presented.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for the kind recognition of the clarity of the results. In the revised article, the result section has been extended based on the feedback from other reviewers.

The Discussion section should be improved. I recommend the authors to compare there results with  results from other similar studies. 

Response:
The Conclusion (earlier named Discussion) section has been edited. The authors are not aware of supply chain simulations for cyber exercises. 

The Conclusion section is missing. The author does not state the contribution and limitation of this study.

Response:
A sentence has been added to beginning of Conclusion to highlight the contribution, which leads to the answers to the research questions, that also describe the contribution. The limitations are also discussed in the Conclusion now. 

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Detailed Comments are embedded in the PDF. See attached.

2. The major concern in this paper is the poor arrangement of the sections and subsections. For example, authors were confusing "Materials and Methods" with "background Information" and confused "Results" with Methodology" 
3. Section 4 called "Discussion" is actually "Conclusion"

The paper must be rearranged and flow systematically 

Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Related Works (if any)

Section 3: Materials and Methods or Proposed Design and Description 

Section 4: Results and Discussions

Section 5: Conclusion. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

It is recommended that a native English speaker assist in the placement of the sections and subsections of this paper. 

Author Response

REVIEW 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Detailed Comments are embedded in the PDF. See attached.

2. The major concern in this paper is the poor arrangement of the sections and subsections. For example, authors were confusing "Materials and Methods" with "background Information" and confused "Results" with Methodology" 
3. Section 4 called "Discussion" is actually "Conclusion" 

The paper must be rearranged and flow systematically 

Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Related Works (if any)

Section 3: Materials and Methods or Proposed Design and Description 

Section 4: Results and Discussions

Section 5: Conclusion. 

Response:
We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to improve the structure of the paper.
Subsection "Digital Twin" has been moved to the introduction and subsection "Realistic Global Cyber Environment" promoted as its own section after the introduction. 
Subsections "Requirements", "Architecture and implementation", "Simulation" have been moved to the end of renamed "Proposed Design".
The original title suggested by the journal's guide, "Discussion", has been renamed as "Conclusion".

Comment: Emphasis in the PDF file by the reviewer. 

Response:

Title has not been changed, as per the instructions by our language editor. 

Realistic Global Cyber Environment (RGCE) is the name of the cyber range. This is why the name is capitalized throughout. 

1: "Food Production Cyber Arena" is now written with small initials. 
3.3: "themanufacturing" is now spaced correctly.
3. Results -> Results and Discussion (not Discussions, because language editor preferred the singular here)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments:

1. the document has 67% similarity with version 1 of the document.

2. the authors added information.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

All concerns have been addressed.