Integrating Sustainable Performance into the Digital Maturity Models for SMEs in Manufacturing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your article brings a valuable contribution to the relationship between digital maturity and sustainability performance. To improve it, please reduce the similarity index by rephrasing the similar text with the resource https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240589632401601X?via%3Dihub.

Moreover, I would suggest to introduce more info at line 30 so as to provide the legal definition of SMEs in the analysed region. I found it at lines 275-277, but I felt it should also be included earlier.

I would also like you changed the title of chapter 3 into ”data analysis” (this is only a suggestion, I hope you will find something more relevant) and sections 3.1. and 3.2. ”Literature strategy” is a little tricky, in my view, more precisely as you publish a review. More suggestive titles would add more visibility to your manuscript. 

Yours faithfully,

Author Response

Comments 1:
"To improve it, please reduce the similarity index by rephrasing the similar text with the resource:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240589632401601X?via%3Dihub
In fact, the part of the work done on environmental indicators was derived from very similar work in the mentioned article. Following an in-depth similarity analysis, we ensured that the text contained between lines X and Y was changed so that there was no longer a high similarity between the two articles."

Response 1:
"In fact, the part of the work done on environmental indicators was derived from very similar work in the mentioned article. Following an in-depth similarity analysis, we ensured that the text contained in the section 3.3.1 was changed so that there was no longer a high similarity between the two articles."

Comments 2:
"I would suggest to introduce more info at line 30 so as to provide a legal definition of SMEs in the analysed region. I found it at lines 275-277, but I felt it should also be included earlier."

Response 2:
"The modification has been made at line 36 as follows:
'Small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMMEs) hold an important position in Canada, as they are defined as businesses with between 1 and 500 employees and annual revenues below 50 million dollars. They play a crucial role by contributing to job creation and supporting the vitality of various regions across the country. In 2022, small and medium-sized enterprises with between 1 and 99 employees in Canada employed approximately 63% of the Canadian workforce, equating to nearly 10.7 million workers.'"

Comments 3:
"I would also like to change the title of chapter 3 into ‘data analysis’ and sections 3.1 and 3.2. ‘Literature strategy’ is a little tricky, in my view, more precisely as you publish a review."

Response 3:
"Thank you for your suggestion. After reviewing the content, we have decided to retain the title 'Literature Review' for Chapter 3, as it primarily focuses on reviewing existing research rather than analyzing data. However, to improve clarity, we have renamed Section 3.2 from 'Literature Strategy' to 'Search and Selection Strategy' to better reflect its purpose of describing the systematic selection and analysis of literature."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract - Lacks Specificity The abstract is too broad and does not provide clear insights into the actual contributions or findings. It should specify the unique aspect of the proposed framework.

2. Introduction - Redundant Statistics The first paragraph overloads the reader with general statistics on SMMEs in Canada. This information is not necessary in such depth and could be streamlined.

3. Literature Review - Weak Justification for Sources The literature review relies heavily on SCOPUS but does not explain why other databases (e.g., Web of Science) were excluded. This weakens the credibility of the literature selection.

4. Methodology - Circular Justification The choice of the Gamache model is justified based on its "relevance" but without critical evaluation. The paper should compare it against other digital maturity models to strengthen the rationale.

5. Conceptual Framework - No Empirical Validation The study develops a conceptual framework but provides no empirical validation. The authors should acknowledge this limitation more explicitly.

6. Discussion - Overstating Impact The claim that this model "fully meets the objective of bridging the gap" is overstated. The model is theoretical and untested.

7. Indicator Selection - Lacks Weighting or Prioritisation No discussion is provided on how indicators are weighted in importance. Not all indicators contribute equally to sustainable performance.

8. Future Work - Lacks Clear Research Design The future work section is vague on how data will be collected and validated. The authors should outline a concrete plan.

9. Figures - Unclear Contribution Figures 2 and 5 seem to reiterate the same concept in different layouts without adding new analytical depth.

10. Conclusion - Unsupported Claims The conclusion suggests this work "paves the way" for Industry 5.0 but offers no justification for how the study contributes to that transition.

Final Recommendation: Major Revision

The paper needs empirical validation, stronger justification for the chosen model, and a clearer discussion on indicator weighting. Additionally, claims should be toned down to reflect the study's actual contributions.

Author Response

Comments 1:
"Abstract - Lacks Specificity
The abstract is too broad and does not provide clear insights into the actual contributions or findings. It should specify the unique aspect of the proposed framework."

Response 1:
"We have revised the abstract to enhance its specificity and clearly highlight the study’s unique contributions. The updated version now emphasizes the economic importance of SMMEs and the challenges they face in adopting digital technologies while ensuring sustainable performance. Additionally, we have clarified the gap in traditional digital maturity models, which often fail to capture the economic, social, and environmental impacts of digital transformation. To address this issue, we explicitly state that the study proposes a structured framework integrating sustainable performance indicators into digital maturity models, providing a systematic approach to assessing sustainability within digital transformation efforts. These revisions ensure that the abstract presents a precise overview of the research’s scope, contributions, and implications. We appreciate your suggestion, which has helped refine the clarity and impact of our work."

Comments 2:
"Introduction - Redundant Statistics
The first paragraph overloads the reader with general statistics on SMMEs in Canada. This information is not necessary in such depth and could be streamlined."

Response 2:
"We have revised the introduction to reduce the number of statistics while retaining the essential information that justifies the importance of SMMEs and the relevance of our study. We removed some secondary statistics, such as the detailed breakdown of employees and the exact contribution to GDP, to streamline the text and avoid an overload of general information. However, we retained the key figure indicating that SMMEs employ 63% of the workforce, as it clearly illustrates their economic significance. Additionally, we clarified and shortened some sentences to improve readability without altering the message. The original structure has been preserved to maintain the logical flow between the importance of SMMEs, their challenges, and the need for better integration of sustainable performance into digital maturity models. These adjustments lighten the introduction while ensuring a smooth transition to the research problem."

Comments 3:
"Literature Review - Weak Justification for Sources
The literature review relies heavily on SCOPUS but does not explain why other databases (e.g., Web of Science) were excluded. This weakens the credibility of the literature selection."

Response 3:
"The justification for using SCOPUS as the primary database has been clarified in the manuscript. SCOPUS was selected due to its broad multidisciplinary coverage, strong indexing of peer-reviewed research in industrial engineering, and advanced filtering capabilities, which allow for a rigorous selection of publications. Additionally, its citation tracking features facilitated a structured approach to identifying key contributions in the field. The exclusion of Web of Science has also been explicitly addressed, with an explanation that SCOPUS was chosen for its broader coverage of technical and applied research. Furthermore, a discussion of the potential limitation of relying on a single database has been added to the research limitations section, highlighting the opportunity for future studies to include cross-validation with other sources to enhance the robustness of the literature selection."

Comments 4:
"Methodology - Circular Justification
The choice of the Gamache model is justified based on its 'relevance' but without critical evaluation. The paper should compare it against other digital maturity models to strengthen the rationale."

Response 4:
"A more detailed comparison with other digital maturity models has been added to the methodology section. The Digital Maturity Model (DMM) by Carnegie Mellon University and the Acatech Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index are now explicitly discussed, highlighting their strengths and limitations. While these models provide structured assessments, they are primarily designed for large enterprises and focus on technological capabilities rather than the organisational and operational challenges specific to SMMEs. The Gamache model was chosen for its multidimensional approach, addressing factors such as workforce skills, change management, and strategic adaptability, which are critical for smaller manufacturers. Additionally, a discussion has been included in the research limitations section to acknowledge that future studies could compare the applicability of different digital maturity models in assessing sustainable performance within SMMEs."

Comments 5:
"Conceptual Framework - No Empirical Validation
The study develops a conceptual framework but provides no empirical validation. The authors should acknowledge this limitation more explicitly."

Response 5:
"The manuscript has been updated to explicitly acknowledge the lack of empirical validation of the proposed conceptual framework. While the framework is based on an extensive literature review and integrates key elements from existing digital maturity and sustainability models, its applicability in real-world contexts remains to be tested. To address this limitation, a statement has been added in the research limitations section, highlighting the need for future empirical validation through case studies, surveys, or experimental applications in SMMEs."

Comments 6:
"Discussion Overstating Impact
The claim that this model 'fully meets the objective of bridging the gap' is overstated. The model is theoretical and untested."

Response 6:
"The manuscript has been revised to moderate the claim regarding the conceptual framework’s impact. The discussion now emphasizes that while the framework contributes to reducing the gap between digital maturity and sustainable performance, it remains theoretical and requires empirical validation. The phrasing has been adjusted to clarify that this study establishes a foundation for further research rather than providing a fully validated model. Additionally, a statement has been added to highlight the need for future empirical testing through case studies, surveys, or experimental applications in manufacturing SMMEs to assess its practical applicability."

Comments 7:
"Indicator Selection - Lacks Weighting or Prioritisation
No discussion is provided on how indicators are weighted in importance. Not all indicators contribute equally to sustainable performance."

Response 7:
"The manuscript already includes a discussion on the frequency of indicators identified in the literature, which provides insights into their common use in sustainable performance assessment. However, a clarification has been added to distinguish between frequency and actual weighting, emphasizing that commonly cited indicators are not necessarily the most impactful. Additionally, a statement has been included to suggest future research methodologies such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to develop a more structured weighting approach. This ensures a more rigorous interpretation of indicator importance beyond their prevalence in existing studies."

Comments 8:
"Future Work - Lacks Clear Research Design
The future work section is vague on how data will be collected and validated. The authors should outline a concrete plan."

Response 8:
"Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The Future Work section in this article is intended to outline potential research directions rather than provide a fully developed research design. While we recognize the importance of detailing data collection and validation methods, we believe that such an in-depth discussion would be more appropriate in a separate empirical study. The level of detail requested falls outside the scope of this conceptual paper, which aims primarily to establish a framework for integrating sustainable performance into digital maturity assessment. Future empirical work will be conducted and published separately, where methodological specifics will be fully developed. We appreciate this feedback, as it highlights the next logical step in advancing this research, which we look forward to exploring in greater depth."

Comments 9:
"Figures - Unclear Contribution
Figures 2 and 5 seem to reiterate the same concept in different layouts without adding new analytical depth."

Response 9:
"The manuscript has been revised to explicitly clarify the distinction between Figures 2 and 5 within the discussion. Figure 2 establishes the conceptual structure linking digital maturity and sustainable performance, while Figure 5 builds on this foundation by incorporating the identified indicators, making the framework more actionable for analysis. An additional explanation has been included to highlight that Figure 2 presents a high-level conceptual model, whereas Figure 5 provides a more detailed breakdown of how each sustainability dimension is represented through specific indicators, offering a more practical tool for assessment. These adjustments ensure that both figures contribute uniquely to the study and are not redundant."

Comments 10:
"Conclusion - Unsupported Claims
The conclusion suggests this work 'paves the way' for Industry 5.0 but offers no justification for how the study contributes to that transition."

Response 10:
"The manuscript has been revised to clarify the link between this study and Industry 5.0. The conclusion now explicitly states that by integrating sustainability considerations into digital maturity assessment, this research aligns with the core principles of Industry 5.0, which emphasize a transition toward a more human-centric, resilient, and sustainable industrial paradigm. Additionally, rather than stating that this study 'paves the way' for Industry 5.0, the revised text positions this research as a foundation for future investigations on how digital transformation strategies can evolve to meet Industry 5.0 objectives. These adjustments ensure that the conclusion remains well-grounded in the study's actual contributions while acknowledging its implications for future research."

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments from Reviewer

Manuscript ID: applsci-3460220

Integrating Sustainable Performance into the Digital Maturity Models for SMEs in Manufacturing

The authors studied the integration of sustainable performance metrics into digital maturity models specifically tailored for small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMMEs). The problem addressed is the inadequacy of traditional digital maturity models in capturing DT's economic, social, and environmental impacts, particularly within the context of sustainable performance goals. This study aims to bridge this gap by proposing a framework integrating sustainable performance indicators into existing digital maturity models.

The current form's presentation of methods and scientific results is unsatisfactory for publication in the Applied Science journal. Some comments apply to the entire article. Please take this into account when making corrections. The minor and significant drawbacks to be addressed can be specified as follows:

Minor comments:

1. Line 39. “[4], [5],” ---> “[4,5]”. See also, for example” line 44 “[7], [8].”
2. Line 46. “[9], [6]” ---> “[6,9]”
3. Line 55. “[12], [13], [14], [15] ---> “[12-15]
4. Line 78. “Industry 4.0” AND “Digital Maturity,” ---> “Industry 4.0” and “Digital Maturity,”
5. Line 232. “by [29]..” Two dots???
6. Line 234. Reference?
7. Figs. 1 and 2. No consequences. (i) digital ---> Digital (ii) architecture ---> Architecture (iii) external ---> External (iv)…
8. Figs. Please check the content of the pictures for uppercase/lowercase letters at the beginning of words.
9. Fig. 2, figure captions. Reference?
10. Some abbreviations are explained several times in the text. It is sufficient to do it the first time. Lines 27 and 275 – “Small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMMEs). Lines 310 and 436 (ROI)
11. 3.1.3 Digital maturity ---> 3.1.3 Digital Maturity
12. Line 646 “[59], [7], and [38]” wrong order.
13. Table A.1. No citation in the text.
14. Literature should also be standardized: the size of letters in the titles of journals, initials of names, the size of letters in the titles of articles. References require further format modification and refinement.

Major comments:

1. Conclusions. No answers to questions: “Q1: What specific indicators from the literature address both digital maturity and sustainable performance, and how do they contribute to a unified measurement framework? Q2: Which types of data or dimensions are necessary to enhance existing digital maturity models to better integrate sustainability considerations?”
2. Has the research taken into account the impact of AI?

 

Sincerely,

    The reviewer.

Author Response

Comments 1:
"[4], [5]," -> "[4.5]". See also, for example "[7]. [8]."

Response 1:
"All [x], [y] references in the text have been changed to either [x,y] or [x-y], ensuring proper consolidation of citations as suggested."

Comments 2:
"[9], [6] ---> '[6.9]'"

Response 2:
"We have updated these references from '[9],[6]' to '[6,9]' to maintain consistency in citation format."

Comments 3:
"[12], [13], [14], [15] --> '[12-15]'"

Response 3:
"In places where multiple consecutive citations appeared, they have been condensed into a single bracketed range. Therefore, '[12], [13], [14], [15]' is now presented as '[12–15]' in the text."

Comments 4:
'"Industry 4.0" AND "Digital Maturity," -> "Industry 4.0" and "Digital Maturity."'

Response 4:
"This formatting concern has been corrected. We now consistently use 'Industry 4.0' and 'Digital Maturity' (with 'and' rather than 'AND') to reflect standard writing conventions."

Comments 5:
"The error have been correct as 'Industry 4.0' and 'Digital Maturity.' 78"

Response 5:
"Confirmed. Any occurrences with extra punctuation or inconsistent phrasing have been replaced with 'Industry 4.0 and Digital Maturity.' in line 78 (and elsewhere as needed)."

Comments 6:
'"by [29].." Two dots???'

Response 6:
"We have removed the duplicate period. That instance now reads 'by [26].' to ensure consistent punctuation."

Comments 7:
"Reference?"

Response 7:
"The reference has been clarified to read: 'Digital maturity model developed by [29].' Where necessary, we have updated in-text mentions accordingly."

Comments 8:
"Figs. 1 and 2. No consequences. (i) digital-> Digital (ii) architecture-> Architecture (iii) external-> External (iv)..."

Response 8:
"The figures have been updated with proper uppercase/lowercase usage (Digital, Architecture, External, etc.) to maintain consistency in labeling."

Comments 9:
"Figs. Please check the content of the pictures for uppercase/lowercase letters at the beginning of words."

Response 9:
"We have verified all figures and corrected any inconsistencies regarding uppercase/lowercase usage in titles, axes, labels, and captions."

Comments 10:
"Fig. 2, figure captions. Reference?
OK
The reference has been changed for '…(integration of the digital maturity model by [29] on the left side…' 251"

Response 10:
"We revised the figure caption to include the correct reference to [29], ensuring alignment with the main text."

Comments 11:
"Some abbreviations are explained several times in the text. It is sufficient to do it the first time. Lines 27 and 275-'Smali and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMMEs).' Lines 310 and 436 (ROI)"

Response 11:
"Duplicate abbreviations have been removed to avoid redundancy. For instance, the definition of SMMEs and ROI now appears only once, at their first mention."

Comments 12:
"3.1.3 Digital maturity --> 3.1.3 Digital Maturity"

Response 12:
"This typographical issue has been resolved, and the section title now reads '3.1.3 Digital Maturity.'"

Comments 13:
"[59]. [7], and [38] wrong order."

Response 13:
"The authors have been deliberately placed in that order. No change was made, as this sequence was intentional for referencing a specific argument flow."

Comments 14:
"Table A.1. No citation in the text. The table have been removed from the appendix. 913"

Response 14:
"Since Table A.1. was not cited in the main text, we opted to remove it from the appendix to ensure consistency and clarity."

Comments 15:
"Literature should also be standardized: the size of letters in the titles of journals, initials of names, the size of letters in the titles of articles. References require further format modification and refinement. 915-1047"

Response 15:
"We have reformatted the references for consistency and standardized features such as title casing, author initials, and journal names, adhering to the required style guidelines."

Comments 16:
"Conclusions. No answers to questions: 'Q1: What specific indicators from the literature address both digital maturity and sustainable performance, and how do they contribute to a unified measurement framework? Q2: Which types of data or dimensions are necessary to enhance existing digital maturity models to better integrate sustainability considerations?'"

Response 16:
"Thank you for this important observation. The conclusion section has been revised to explicitly answer these two research questions. We clarify the structured set of economic, social, and environmental indicators identified from the literature and show how they provide a quantifiable basis for assessing both digital transformation and sustainable performance. Additionally, we specify the necessity of incorporating resource efficiency metrics, workforce well-being indicators, and environmental performance measures to enhance existing digital maturity models. These revisions ensure the conclusion is closely aligned with the research objectives and directly addresses the questions posed."

Comments 17:
"Has the research taken into account the impact of AI?"

Response 17:
"The manuscript has been updated to acknowledge that this study does not specifically isolate the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on digital transformation and sustainable performance. AI is noted as a core component of Industry 4.0, and we suggest that future research could examine its role in shaping sustainability metrics or propose AI readiness as a distinct dimension in digital maturity models."

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regards,
First, the authors wrote that this is an Article, however, this is a review paper and it is necessary to correct the paper accordingly. This is because a new model was established based on the literature review. I'm looking at this mod now and I don't see anything significant new in it. This is nicely systematized, but it all boils down to making Sustainable Development Goals for SMMEs. It is fine for this model to be at the end, but it is necessary to make a couple of analyzes and tables in the results of how many criteria were used, how they were changed, etc. So my proposal is to return the paper to the authors and make a review paper out of it, because this has no contribution to be an Article.

 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The authors defined the research question: The digital maturity models designed to assist SMMEs in their DT do not allow for the measurement of social, economic, and environmental benefits from digital implementation; there is a gap between digital maturity measurement and sustainable performance measurement.

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?
The authors did not define research gaps.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The paper does not have any significant contribution, it is more of a review paper than an original scientific paper.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
There is no improvement in terms of methodology. Using a literature review, a new model was developed that has not been proven.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments?
The conclusion is cool and it is not, and it even cites a reference

6. Are the references appropriate?
References are appropriate.

7. Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data.
The quality of the tables and figures is good.

All the best.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no complaints about the quality of the English language.

Author Response

Comments 1:
"What is the main question addressed by the research?
The authors defined the research question: The digital maturity models designed to assist SMMEs in their DT do not allow for the measurement of social, economic, and environmental benefits from digital implementation; there is a gap between digital maturity measurement and sustainable performance measurement."

Response 1:
"Thank you for highlighting the importance of clearly stating the main research question. In the introduction, we define it as follows: 'How can sustainable performance indicators be integrated into digital maturity models to provide a more comprehensive evaluation framework for SMMEs undergoing digital transformation?' The same question is revisited in the conclusion to ensure consistency."

Comments 2:
"What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field?
What specific gap in the field does the paper address?
The authors did not define research gaps."

Response 2:
"We have revised the introduction to more explicitly state the research gap and highlight the originality of our contribution. Specifically, we clarify how existing digital maturity models do not sufficiently account for economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability, creating a gap in both theory and practice. Our work addresses this gap by proposing a unified framework that integrates sustainability metrics into digital maturity assessment for SMMEs. This framework is original and relevant because it broadens the scope of digital transformation research to include sustainable performance, thereby providing a more holistic and practical tool for both scholars and practitioners. We have introduced a dedicated paragraph in the introduction explaining this gap and the unique contribution of our study."

Comments 3:
"What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The paper does not have any significant contribution, it is more of a review paper than an original scientific paper."

Response 3:
"Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have expanded our discussion to clarify our unique contribution. While our study includes a thorough review of existing indicators, it goes beyond a standard literature review by introducing a novel, integrated framework that aligns economic, social, and environmental indicators with digital maturity models specifically for SMMEs. This approach addresses a key gap in the literature, offering both theoretical and practical value by enabling smaller manufacturers to assess and improve their digital transformation strategies alongside their sustainability performance. We believe these refinements illustrate that our work provides an original contribution rather than serving as a mere compilation of existing studies. In the conclusion, we added a paragraph explaining how the study moves beyond a standard literature review and provides an actionable framework specifically designed for small manufacturers. We have italicized the new sentences in the revised text to highlight these changes. By focusing on practical indicators that link digital maturity to sustainability outcomes, our work contributes both a conceptual advancement and a practical tool for SMMEs. This ensures that the study addresses a tangible gap in the literature as well. We hope these clarifications make our contribution to the field more evident."

Comments 4:
"What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
There is no improvement in terms of methodology. Using a literature review, a new model was developed that has not been proven."

Response 4:
"Thank you for your feedback regarding the methodology. We have revised our approach to show more clearly how our model goes beyond a basic literature review and why it is methodologically relevant for the context of Québec’s small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. First, we provide a structured procedure for identifying and organizing sustainability indicators, thereby clarifying the conceptual basis for integrating economic, social, and environmental dimensions into the Gamache model. This structured approach ensures that each indicator is rigorously selected and directly tied to the previously identified gap between digital maturity measurement and sustainable performance. Second, we explain why the Gamache model is particularly suitable, emphasizing its distinct dimensions and its recognition in Québec’s industrial environment, which is strongly supported by digital transformation initiatives. By explicitly justifying how this framework accommodates sustainability metrics, we avoid simply inserting a new set of indicators without a methodological rationale. Finally, we acknowledge that an empirical phase remains necessary to confirm the model’s applicability and reliability. While our paper centers on laying out the conceptual framework, we have made it clear that future work will involve the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data to test how these indicators perform in real-world settings. We believe that this clarity on our structured approach and our plan for subsequent validation provides the necessary methodological foundation, and we trust it addresses your concerns about the improvements needed in our research design."

Comments 5:
"Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments?
The conclusion is cool and it is not, and it even cites a reference."

Response 5:
"Thank you for your comment. It appears that the concern about the conclusion was also raised in a different comment, which has already been addressed through specific revisions. As a result, no further action seems necessary here. The previously implemented changes likely resolve the 'not-cool' aspect mentioned, ensuring the conclusion is now consistent with both the supporting evidence and prior feedback."

Comments 6:
"Are the references appropriate?
References are appropriate."

Response 6:
"Thank you for confirming that the references are appropriate. No specific revision appears necessary in response to this comment."

Comments 7:
"Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data.
The quality of the tables and figures is good."

Response 7:
"Thank you for your positive feedback. Since no further concerns were raised regarding the tables, figures, or data quality, no additional changes appear to be required in these areas."

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the author(s) performed relevant and adequate improvements

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a substantial improvement for this article. The manuscript can be accepted for publishment in the present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Greetings,
The authors corrected the paper according to the reviews. However, the paper cannot be an article but a review paper. That needs to be fixed.