Review Reports - Integrating Industry 4.0 Technologies into 8D Methodologies: A Case Study in the Automotive Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the submission. The authors present presents the 8D method applied to a case study from the automotive industry, along with a solution that implements the 8D method through the latest IT, AI, and IoT technologies.

Abstract:

Please add more about your findings and contribution to the literature in this section.
You can also add numbers/percentages of improvements etc.

Introduction:

Why did you capitalize smart on line 44?
This section needs more citations and more information.
Mention the research gap and your contributions in detail in introduction section.
Instead of Next comes the Literature Review section…. or Case study section…., use the section numbering.
Line 139 paper [16], line 152 paper [19]… instead of “paper” use the :author’s last name and year”.

Materials and Methods:

In subsection 3.1., before table 2, please provide more information about the component.
The rest of this section is well-written.

The case study:

The application is well-presented.

Conclusion:

Correct the section name as “conclusion”, remove “s” at the end
Remove the bullet points and write them as a paragraph (lines 1025-1029)

Please check the grammar and punctuation before you resubmit the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check the grammar and punctuation before you resubmit the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank you for your comments, which helped to clarify the paper and to present the contributions and results more concisely. Below are our responses to your comments (bold):

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

Please add more about your findings and contribution to the literature in this section. – abstract was revised to be more concise and to describe scientific and practical results also with technologies and quantitative improvements (see yellow in revised paper)
You can also add numbers/percentages of improvements etc. – in abstract was included numeric evaluations of improvements (see yellow in revised paper)

Introduction:

Why did you capitalize smart on line 44? done (see green in revised paper)
This section needs more citations and more information. This section text was been added detailing the elements brought by our article proposal (see green text) and in the Literature review section, new citations with case studies where 8D analysis was used were added, highlighting the elements added by our proposal compared to other studies (see purple text in section 2 Literature review)
Mention the research gap and your contributions in detail in introduction section. done (see green in revised paper)
Instead of Next comes the Literature Review section…. or Case study section…., use the section numbering. done (see green in revised paper)
Line 139 paper [16], line 152 paper [19]… instead of “paper” use the :author’s last name and year”. done (see green in revised paper)

Materials and Methods:

In subsection 3.1., before table 2, please provide more information about the component. done (see green in revised paper)
The rest of this section is well-written.

The case study:

The application is well-presented.

Conclusion:

Correct the section name as “conclusion”, remove “s” at the end done (see green in revised paper)
Remove the bullet points and write them as a paragraph (lines 1025-1029) done (see green in revised paper)

Please check the grammar and punctuation before you resubmit the manuscript. We checked the entire article and corrected the wording. We rephrased some sentences that were too long (see red text)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check the grammar and punctuation before you resubmit the manuscript. We checked the entire article and corrected the wording. We rephrased some sentences that were too long (see red text)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is too general and does not highlight specific scientific or practical results. It is necessary to clearly indicate exactly what has been developed, which technologies have been integrated, and what quantitative improvements have been achieved.
Statements about benefits (for example, "time has been reduced from hours to minutes") are declarative in nature and are not supported by comparative data or metrics before and after implementation in the main text. This requires a separate table or graph.
The "Results" section lists hardware components and states success, but does not provide a comparative analysis of key indicators (PPM, costs, time) before and after the implementation of the solution.
The description of the pilot solution is not detailed enough to reproduce. There are no details about the AI model (which version of ChatGPT exactly? how was she trained?), system architecture, communication protocols, etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank you for your comments, which helped to clarify the paper and to present the contributions and results more concisely. Below are our responses to your comments (bold)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is too general and does not highlight specific scientific or practical results. It is necessary to clearly indicate exactly what has been developed, which technologies have been integrated, and what quantitative improvements have been achieved. abstract was revised to be more concise and to describe scientific and practical results also with technologies and quantitative improvements (see yellow in revised paper)
Statements about benefits (for example, "time has been reduced from hours to minutes") are declarative in nature and are not supported by comparative data or metrics before and after implementation in the main text. This requires a separate table or graph. In section 5. Results, an explanation was introduced regarding the impact of applying the 8D solution to reduce the cost of non-conformity and the failure rate (see text in green) accompanied by figures 26, 27 showing the evolution of the failure rate (PPM) and figure 28 showing the evolution of the cost of non-conformity. Also, in same section is table 19 in which a comparison is made indicating quantitatively the advantages of our solution compared to what exists (current solution) and a text has been introduced (see red text) highlighting the estimated number of customer complaints that decreased when our solution was introduced.
The "Results" section lists hardware components and states success, but does not provide a comparative analysis of key indicators (PPM, costs, time) before and after the implementation of the solution. In section 5. Results, an explanation was introduced regarding the impact of applying the 8D solution to reduce the cost of non-conformity and the failure rate (see text in green) accompanied by figures 26, 27 showing the evolution of the failure rate (PPM) and figure 28 showing the evolution of the cost of non-conformity. Also, in same section is table 19 in which a comparison is made indicating quantitatively the advantages of our solution compared to what exists (current solution) and a text has been introduced (see red text) highlighting the estimated number of customer complaints that decreased when our solution was introduced.
The description of the pilot solution is not detailed enough to reproduce. There are no details about the AI model (which version of ChatGPT exactly? how was she trained?), system architecture, communication protocols, etc. In section 4.3, there is Figure 10 which shows the system architecture. Also here, text has been introduced (see red text) detailing the LLM features as well as the prompt templates, the communication protocols between modules and how IoT devices communicate to the server.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Summary
The manuscript presents a multidisciplinary study that integrates classical quality management tools (such as 8D, FMEA, SPC, and capability indices) with Industry 4.0 technologies including AI, IoT, and reporting systems. The case study demonstrates measurable improvements in manufacturing performance, particularly in reducing defects and enhancing traceability. The article is timely and relevant to both academic and industrial audiences, though it requires improvements in clarity, methodological transparency, and conciseness.
2) Strengths
-Strong multidisciplinary approach combining management science, industrial engineering, and digital technologies.
-Well-structured with clear inclusion of case study and quantitative/qualitative analyses.
-Figures and tables are generally clear and contribute to comprehension.
-Industrial relevance and high potential impact for practitioners in automotive and related sectors.
3) Weaknesses for improvement
-The introduction could include additional references and stronger conceptual connection to the presented case.
-The methodological description of AI/IoT integration is brief and limits reproducibility.
4) Specific comments
- Strengthen the literature review by including recent and relevant studies to contextualize the scientific contribution.
- Expand methodological transparency, particularly for AI/IoT implementation, with pseudocode, workflow diagrams, or detailed descriptions.
- Improve cohesion between sections by ensuring smooth transitions from background to case study.
- Revise the manuscript for conciseness and fluency, reducing redundancies and long sentences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We thank you for your comments, which helped to clarify the paper and to present the contributions and results more concisely. Below are our responses to your comments (bold).

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your appreciation.
3) Weaknesses for improvement
-The introduction could include additional references and stronger conceptual connection to the presented case. In this section text was been added detailing the elements brought by our article proposal (see green text) and in the Literature review section, new citations with case studies where 8D analysis was used were added, highlighting the elements added by our proposal compared to other studies (see purple text in section 2 Literature review)
-The methodological description of AI/IoT integration is brief and limits reproducibility. . In section 4.3, there is Figure 10 which shows the system architecture. Also here, text has been introduced (see red text) detailing the LLM features as well as the prompt templates, the communication protocols between modules and how IoT devices communicate to the server
4) Specific comments
- Strengthen the literature review by including recent and relevant studies to contextualize the scientific contribution. in the Literature review section, new citations with case studies where 8D analysis was used were added, highlighting the elements added by our proposal compared to other studies (see purple text in section 2 Literature review)
- Expand methodological transparency, particularly for AI/IoT implementation, with pseudocode, workflow diagrams, or detailed descriptions. . In section 4.3, there is Figure 10 which shows the system architecture. Also here, text has been introduced (see red text) detailing the LLM features as well as the prompt templates, the communication protocols between modules and how IoT devices communicate to the server
- Improve cohesion between sections by ensuring smooth transitions from background to case study. in the Literature review section, new citations with case studies where 8D analysis was used were added, highlighting the elements added by our proposal compared to other studies (see purple text in section 2 Literature review)
- Revise the manuscript for conciseness and fluency, reducing redundancies and long sentences. We checked the entire article and corrected the wording. We rephrased some sentences that were too long (see red text)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is clear and mostly professional. However, the manuscript has repetitive phrases, lengthy sentences, and occasional terminology inconsistencies. A thorough language edit is advised to enhance clarity, brevity, and smoothness. We checked the entire article and corrected the wording. We rephrased some sentences that were too long (see red text)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Move the following paragraph as the last paragraph of introduction.

The Literature Review (Section 2) presents studies conducted in the fields addressed 82 in this paper and explains how our proposed solution brings improvements. In Materials 83 and Methods (Section 3), the 8D methods are detailed based on the case study presented 84 in this article. The Case Study (Section 4) describes the actual case study, along with the 85 technologies involved in implementing the 8D analysis. Finally, the paper concludes with 86 Results (Section 5) and Conclusions (Section 6).

Line 128, 'the study' should be replaced by the author's last name. Do this for all. Please use authors last names instead of “study” or “paper”

In work paper [13], again, you need to write the author's last name.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your helpful comments and appreciation. Below is the response to each comment/observation

Move the following paragraph as the last paragraph of introduction.

We have revised the manuscript as per your recommendation, and the corresponding modifications have been highlighted in blue for ease of review.

Line 128, 'the study' should be replaced by the author's last name. Do this for all. Please use authors last names instead of “study” or “paper”
In work paper [13], again, you need to write the author's last name.

The manuscript has been revised according to your recommendations, with the changes highlighted in blue. Additionally, expressions such as “paper,” “study,” and “work paper” have been replaced with the full names of the authors for a clearer and more consistent presentation throughout the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account all the comments, no additional corrections are required.

Author Response

The authors have taken into account all the comments, no additional corrections are required.

Thank you again for your important contribution to improving the article.