Eco-design and Eco-efficiency Competencies Development in Engineering and Design Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW REPORT
Brief Summary:
This paper presents lessons-learned from activity of competence development in the student of mechanical and product design engineering. The students are assigned to identify the industrial product and its fabrication process, to perform an eco-design analysis of the product, and to perform an eco-efficiency evaluation of the production process. All of the assignment parts are carried out in the real industrial company. The application of the assignment including its challenges are reported in this paper as well as the key conclusions.
Broad comments:
1. The author(s) are requested to have the manuscript read and edited by a person who is well founded in English and technical written language
2. The content of this manuscript is too few for an original research paper format which mostly contains approximately 5000 (five thousand) words. The authors need to add more content in this manuscript. Some of the following suggestions could be considered by the author(s) in order to make the manuscript richer of scientific information.
3. The manuscript misses one important keyword which addresses competences development in engineering students. Therefore, the author(s) are requested to add (for example) “engineering education” as one of the keywords. Although the term of “assignment” in the “Life Cycle Assignment” keywords could be interpreted as an education term, however the keyword is still less reflecting education issues as the foundation of competences development.
4. The author(s) put interesting point-of-views – Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy – to highlight eco-design and eco-efficiency competences. However, the manuscript has still lack of explanation on those issues due to only 2 (two) paragraphs – second and third paragraphs – describe the issues. The author(s) are requested to add more explanation on those two issues, especially in the relationship with eco-design and eco-efficiency, which components on Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy are most related with eco-design and eco-efficiency. Without such explanations, those two recent issues are not highlighted within this manuscript and consequently this paper loss its potential is less rich of information.
5. Since the manuscript presents the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of industrial products as one of the assignments, the author(s) are requested to add one or two paragraphs containing the explanation of LCA since the background of this journal’s readers is broad – not only from engineering background.
Specific comments:
1. The manuscript still contains too few references for an interesting topic presented here. Moreover, less than one-third only of the references are still within the last 5 years. Since competences development for engineering students is a quite common topic of discussions, the author(s) are suggested to add more references especially on the discussion of relationship between Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy with eco-design and eco-efficiency concepts. Simply, the author(s) are requested to expand second and third paragraphs with references on (for example, but not limited to) recent studies regarding the shifting industries due to the introduction of Industry 4.0 concept, how eco-design and eco-efficiency are different with non-eco ones, and how the economic impacts on the industry due to the introduction of the concept.
2. The illustration of the shifting from conventional business model to the new one based on Industry 4.0 and Economic Circular presented in the fourth paragraph is still difficult to chew. Due to the broad range of readers’ background of this journal, the author(s) are suggested to provide more illustrations which are more common and contain less technical terms.
3. The author(s) need to revise a small communication and presentation aspect of the second paragraph in page 3. If the first and second stages of the assignment parts are mentioned, the third stage is also supposed to be mentioned.
4. In order to improve the reproducibility of the activity described in the manuscript, the author(s) are requested to provide more visual information regarding the stages of the assignment and its step-by-step activities – e.g. by schematic diagram of flowchart. Relying on only written expression in presenting the assignment activities may reduce reproducibility of this interesting activities by the other engineering educators.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1
Thank you for your valuable comments. All of them are relevant and have been addressed, having improved the value of the paper.
Following we will reply to each remark done, highlining the changes done to the manuscript. The submitted manuscript has track-changes facility to be easier to understand the made changes.
Broad comments:
1. The author(s) are requested to have the manuscript read and edited by a person who is well founded in English and technical written language
The manuscript has been revised by a native American.
2. The content of this manuscript is too few for an original research paper format which mostly contains approximately 5000 (five thousand) words. The authors need to add more content in this manuscript. Some of the following suggestions could be considered by the author(s) in order to make the manuscript richer of scientific information.
We have improved and extended the paper, following your recommendations
3. The manuscript misses one important keyword which addresses competences development in engineering students. Therefore, the author(s) are requested to add (for example) “engineering education” as one of the keywords. Although the term of “assignment” in the “Life Cycle Assignment” keywords could be interpreted as an education term, however the keyword is still less reflecting education issues as the foundation of competences development.
Very relevant remark. The “engineering education” keyword was added. “Life Cycle Assignment” keyword was removed because it is now redundant and it could lead readers in confusion.
4. The author(s) put interesting point-of-views – Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy – to highlight eco-design and eco-efficiency competences. However, the manuscript has still lack of explanation on those issues due to only 2 (two) paragraphs – second and third paragraphs – describe the issues. The author(s) are requested to add more explanation on those two issues, especially in the relationship with eco-design and eco-efficiency, which components on Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy are most related with eco-design and eco-efficiency. Without such explanations, those two recent issues are not highlighted within this manuscript and consequently this paper loss its potential is less rich of information.
We have extended the introduction section trying to better explain the different concepts, the relation within them and the relation with the assignment.
5. Since the manuscript presents the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of industrial products as one of the assignments, the author(s) are requested to add one or two paragraphs containing the explanation of LCA since the background of this journal’s readers is broad – not only from engineering background.
This as also done in the introduction section.
Specific comments:
1. The manuscript still contains too few references for an interesting topic presented here. Moreover, less than one-third only of the references are still within the last 5 years. Since competences development for engineering students is a quite common topic of discussions, the author(s) are suggested to add more references especially on the discussion of relationship between Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy with eco-design and eco-efficiency concepts. Simply, the author(s) are requested to expand second and third paragraphs with references on (for example, but not limited to) recent studies regarding the shifting industries due to the introduction of Industry 4.0 concept, how eco-design and eco-efficiency are different with non-eco ones, and how the economic impacts on the industry due to the introduction of the concept.
As referred above, we have extended the introduction section trying to better explain the different concepts and the relationships within them. With that, we also worried about getting a much boarder number of references, relevant to the covered topics, being the major of them very recent.
2. The illustration of the shifting from conventional business model to the new one based on Industry 4.0 and Economic Circular presented in the fourth paragraph is still difficult to chew. Due to the broad range of readers’ background of this journal, the author(s) are suggested to provide more illustrations which are more common and contain less technical terms.
We added a sell-made illustration (figure 1) that we believe can help clarify the comprehension of the relationship between Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy. The example of the diamond cutters (previously in the fourth paragraph) tries just to relate a linear model with a circular model for a concrete product. It does not intend to relate Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy. Hopefully, the overall message of the paper is now better.
3. The author(s) need to revise a small communication and presentation aspect of the second paragraph in page 3. If the first and second stages of the assignment parts are mentioned, the third stage is also supposed to be mentioned.
This was clarified.
4. In order to improve the reproducibility of the activity described in the manuscript, the author(s) are requested to provide more visual information regarding the stages of the assignment and its step-by-step activities – e.g. by schematic diagram of flowchart. Relying on only written expression in presenting the assignment activities may reduce reproducibility of this interesting activities by the other engineering educators.
A schematic diagram has been introduced (figure 2)
Thank you for your time.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is useful in that it gets students to relate what they have been taught to the real world, which is useful. However there are too many 'given truth' statements in the intro that lack any definition or reference. What exactly is Industry 4, this is not explained. There is no proper definition of the circular economy, the only one implied is that it is meant to stop the extinction of humanity! This most certainly is not a proper definition. The circular economy fails to discuss overpopulation and consumerism and describes itself as a 'new engine of growth' (Ellen Macarther Foundation) hence it will not stop the environmental crisis or ward off societal collapse. It can however help to reduce material use, which is its key claim to fame. Use of the terms regenerative and restorative without explanation is meaningless. Regenerative of what? Restoring what? The circular economy seeks to create a closed material circle not a closed circle of economic utility! This is just one of several statements that are presented as given truths without any explanation or referencing. It is this that needs to be fixed in the next draft. Similarly, the CE should stop the need for new materials, not just for an exponential need for new materials. The paper talks about the creation of 'sustainable products and proceses' without any discussion of what these actualy are. Sustainable according to whom? According to what standards? Given that there are attempts to subvert the CE and water down the original idea of C2C it is important that this paper doesnt assist such subversion. Hence clarify your statements dont spout greenwash. Having said that, I think the content of the paper is worthy and the idea was good, but please tighten the introduction!
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2
Thank you for your valuable comments. All of them are relevant and have been addressing, having improved the value of the paper. We have improved and extended the paper, following your recommendations, namely, we have extended the introduction section trying to better explain the different concepts, the relation within them and the relation with the assignment. With that, we also worried about getting a much boarder number of references, relevant to the covered topics, being the major of them very recent. All changes were made using track-changes facility so that it is easier to follow the modifications.
Thank you for your time.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have the impression that this article was created to summarize the didactic stage experience of the author / authors. This text can be read very easy and is written in very good English. The layout of this article is unusual and many elements are missing here.
For example, a clearly defined goal is missing here. The introduction very poorly supports the rest of the text and consists in most cases of general assumptions and concepts. There are no hypotheses and falsifications. The results achieved are diluted and more are the conclusions / observations of studied groups. The use of knowledge contained in the literature has been reduced to a minimum. My overall impression is that it is an article more suited to the website / blog but not to the scientific journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3
Thank you for your valuable comments. All of them are relevant and have been addressed, having improved the value of the paper. We have improved and extended the paper, following your recommendations, namely, we have extended the introduction section trying to better explain the different concepts, the relation within them and the relation with the assignment. With that, we also worried about getting a much boarder number of references, relevant to the covered topics, being the major of them very recent. All changes were made using track-changes facility so that it is easier to follow the modifications.
Thank you for your time.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. Overall, it has been improved quite well. However, there is still one thing the author(s) are requested to consider. According to the description of Industry 4.0 in relation to Circular Economy presented in the manuscript, the Figure 1 is still not sufficiently representing the description. In this version, the written description is quite clear which does not need to be illustrated with that Figure 1. Unless the author(s) are able to improve the illustration to be more representing the concept, the Figure 1 is not necessary to be presented. In my humble opinion, the illustration could be improved better than this available figure.
Author Response
Thank you
For the sake of having a clear message in the paper and respond promptly to the review, we will remove the figure.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for reply.
The changes introduced are sufficient and have significantly improved the scientific soundness of the paper.
Best wishes
Author Response
Thank you
