Review Reports

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract: Please mention the necessity of this study in the first two sentences so that the readers can follow your study.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract to address all points raised by the reviewer. The study approach is described in more detail, including the longitudinal design, sample, and research matrix. The updated abstract appears on page 1, lines 14-30, of the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: Abstract: The authors need to qualify and quantify their findings in two sentences at the end of the abstract. They need to explain the study approach in more detail.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have qualified and quantified the key findings in the two sentences by reporting specific growth expectations. The updated abstract appears on page 1, lines 14-30, of the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: Introduction (Lines 32-34): why, in 2017, this need was followed by asking to anticipate which intelligent technologies would be deployed by 2025. The authors should first explain this point.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the Introduction to clarify why the 2017 research asked quality managers to anticipate the deployment of intelligent technologies in 2025. The new text explains that Industry 4.0 technologies were entering a period of rapid development, that companies were making long-term investment decisions with limited data, and that capturing both the current state and the expected future state enabled the study to track technological shifts and identify realistic growth potential. This directly addresses the reviewer’s concern by providing the rationale for selecting 2025 as the reference point for expectations. This new explanation has been added to page 1, lines 35-41, of the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: Introduction (Line 42): The authors need to explain more about the main topic before explaining their own research details.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the Introduction to provide a more precise explanation of the broader topic before presenting the details of our research. The new text outlines the factors that influence the adoption of smart technologies, explains the need for longitudinal study, and clarifies why understanding both expectations and actual adoption is essential. This addition strengthens the logical flow of the Introduction and addresses the reviewer’s concern. The revised text appears on page 2, lines 43-57 of the manuscript.

Comments 5: Introduction (Line 44): The authors should schematically explain these 14 smart technologies in a figure. There is no illustration in the manuscript, making it difficult for readers to follow. Accordingly, this comment is very critical.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added Table 1, which summarizes all 14 smart technologies, and expanded the Introduction to explain why these technologies were selected in our 2017 research. The newly added text and Table 1 appear on pages 2 and 3, lines 65–77 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 6: The introduction section needs a significant revision. It would be great if the authors could explain the main expectations listed in 2017 to be reached in 2025, and explain each of them separately.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph that clearly explains the main expectations identified in the 2017 study and discusses each of them separately. This section also reflects their actual adoption by 2025 to improve clarity and contextual understanding. The new text appears on page 3, lines 79-89, of the revised manuscript.

Comments 7: Lines 55-70: What are “PO1” or “RQ1”?

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have clarified the meaning of the abbreviations used in the Introduction. “PO” refers to Partial Objectives of the research (PO1–PO4), and “RQ” refers to the Research Questions guiding the study (RQ1–RQ3). These explanations have now been added to the manuscript to ensure readers understand the terminology (page 3, lines 95 and 103).

Comments 8: Section 1: Please also add a schematic flowchart of your research plan and objectives, and subsections. Only concentrating on text without a flowchart illustration is not appropriate.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a schematic flowchart to present the research design visually. The new figure illustrates both sub-studies, their stages and samples, and shows how each part of the research links to the research questions (RQ1–RQ3) and partial objectives (PO1–PO4). This visual element enhances clarity and addresses the reviewer’s request for an illustration to accompany the textual explanation. The figure, titled “Research design linking the follow-up longitudinal study and rapid survey to research questions (RQ1–RQ3) and partial objectives (PO1–PO4)”, has been inserted into the revised manuscript (page 4, lines 155-156).

Comments 9: Please cross-check the order of sections. There are two sections 2 in the manuscript.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected the section numbering. The former duplicate Section 2 has been resolved by renumbering “Materials and Methods” as Section 3 and adjusting all subsequent sections accordingly. The structure is now consistent throughout the manuscript.

Comments 10: General comment: Please do not use short paragraphs throughout the manuscript.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript to eliminate short paragraphs and improve the flow by merging related content where appropriate. The updated version now presents fuller, more coherent paragraphs that follow a consistent scientific narrative.

Comments 11: Lines 147-148: Please prepare a table and summarize the list of enterprises used in this study. Why were these 44 manufacturing enterprises used in the present study?

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we prepared a structured summary of the sample composition. The new table and analysis present the representation of enterprises by industry type in both the 2017 and 2025 samples, including the differences expressed as ∆n_i. This provides a clear and transparent overview of the companies included in the study while respecting confidentiality requirements (pages 8-9, lines 316-332). We used the same manufacturing enterprises from the 2017 study because they formed the original sample on which the technological expectations were measured. Re-engaging this identical group is essential for maintaining the validity of a longitudinal comparison. Using the same enterprises ensures that any differences between expected and actual adoption in 2025 reflect real technological developments rather than changes in the sample structure. This consistency is a core requirement of longitudinal research and allows us to directly assess the accuracy of the original expectations (page 7, lines 273-280).

Comments 12: The authors mentioned that “The selection criteria are described by Závadský & Závadská 148 [1]. “, but the readers need to see these criteria in this manuscript. As a scientific paper, the authors should explain all details considered in the research.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript by adding a complete description of the selection criteria directly into the Materials and Methods section. The requirements were rewritten from the original 2017 study to ensure clarity and transparency for readers, explaining why and how the enterprises were chosen for both phases of the research. (page 7, lines 280-295).

Comments 13: Lines 154-155: Why did the authors use “the Dillman Total Design Survey Method “? What is this method?

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the Materials and Methods section by adding a clear description of the Dillman Total Design Survey Method and detailing its application in the 2025 data collection. The revised text explains the sequence of contacts, use of standardized communication, and the controlled email process used to support response quality and methodological consistency (page 9, lines 333-350). In the references, we added numbers 59 and 60. We also added a new table 3 (line 351) to present the classification of respondents in 2025. It shows the distribution of participants across key managerial roles, the number of initial contacts, the number of reminders sent, and the final number of completed surveys. The table confirms that most respondents were quality managers or managers responsible for quality governance, consistent with the 2017 study. It also records four respondents who had moved to new managerial positions within the same enterprise, but who remained eligible due to their knowledge of manufacturing and logistics processes. This table increases transparency and clarifies the structure of the respondent group (pages 9-10, lines 353-365).

Comments 14: Lines 156-157: What are these “expected deployment of 14 intelligent technologies across 26 manufacturing”? No details make it difficult to follow the paper.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have clarified the meaning of the “expected deployment” by explaining that the whole research matrix is already included in Table 4. The table presents all 26 processes and 14 technologies, so a separate matrix is not needed. This explanation has been added to the manuscript to improve clarity. (page 9, lines 339-344).

Comments 15: Section “MATERIALS AND METHODS” needs a significant revision. Many questions exist in the current version.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have substantially revised the entire “Materials and Methods” section to address all raised concerns. Several new elements were added to improve clarity and methodological transparency. These include:
1) a fuller description of the Dillman Total Design Survey Method and how it was applied in the 2025 follow-up study;
2) a new subsection detailing respondent classification and the criteria used to select eligible managers;
3) a more precise explanation of the enterprise sample structure for both 2017 and 2025, supported by a new analysis of industry representation; and
4) a new Table 4 summarizing the methods and research stages applied across both sub-studies (line 366).

Comments 16: Please cross-check the table numbers throughout the manuscript.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reviewed all table numbers in the manuscript and corrected inconsistencies. The tables are now numbered sequentially and referenced accurately throughout the text.

Comments 17: Table 3: The authors need to prepare a summarized explanation for each “Real intelligent technologies” listed.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a summarized explanation for each real intelligent technology deployed in 2025. This information is now included below the renumbered Table 5, which appears on page 15, lines 446–470 of the revised manuscript. The added text clarifies the actual usage of all 14 technologies and improves the readability of the results section. In addition to explanations of real intelligent technologies, we also incorporated results on process automation based on the same 2025 data. This new section provides a clear overview of automation levels across all 26 processes and improves the interpretation of the real deployment findings. These results are included in the revised manuscript on pages 12-13, lines 395–427.

Comments 18: As the manuscript structure was not well-organized and well-written, the comparison shown in Figure 1 is difficult to follow. Please also enhance the quality of this figure. Where is the blue line (E2017_rel) in Figure 1? The authors mention in the figure legend, but do not show it in this figure.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised Figure 1 (now Figure 6) to improve clarity (page 17, line 514). In addition, the manuscript has been substantially reorganized and rewritten to improve the overall structure, readability, and logical flow.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of the English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Without response.

5. Additional clarifications

No additional clarifications.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract does not present the implications of the study at all. It only summarizes the research, failing to convey the study's originality, which lies in comparing expected adoption levels with actual implementation levels. The abstract should clearly highlight the study’s contribution and significance.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have fully revised the abstract to address all comments. The key findings are now qualified and quantified, with explicit references to the processes and technologies that show the largest expectation–reality gaps. Finally, we added a clear statement of the study’s contribution and implications, emphasizing how comparing expected and actual adoption levels advances managerial decision-making and policy support (page 1, lines 14-30).

Comments 2: In the introduction, the authors describe the main parts of the research through the Purpose of the Study (PO) and Research Questions (RQ). However, before presenting these elements, the paper lacks sufficient discussion on why the proposed PO and RQ are important. The authors should elaborate further on the rationale and significance before introducing them.

We agree with this comment. The Introduction has been substantially expanded to provide a clear rationale and more substantial justification for the Partial Objectives (PO) and the Research Questions (RQ) before they are introduced. Several complementary revisions were made to address this:

1. We clarified why, already in 2017, it was necessary to ask quality managers to anticipate technological deployment for 2025, explaining the rapid development of Industry 4.0 and the lack of long-term data for strategic decision-making (page 1, lines 35–41).
2. We added a broader discussion of the main topic, including factors that influence the adoption of intelligent technologies and the need for longitudinal research to understand expectation–reality dynamics (page 2, lines 43–57).
3. We introduced Table 1, which summarizes the fourteen smart technologies examined, and expanded the text to explain why these technologies were selected in the 2017 study (pages 2–3, lines 65–77).
4. We added a paragraph explaining the key expectations formulated in 2017 and how these were intended to be reached by 2025, including their individual relevance (page 3, lines 79–89).
5. We clarified the meaning of all abbreviations so that PO and RQ are entirely understandable when introduced (page 3, lines 95 and 103).
6. Finally, we added a schematic flowchart that visually links PO1–PO4 and RQ1–RQ3 with the two sub-studies and their methodological steps (page 4, lines 155–156).

Comments 3: The literature review section is too brief. Despite numerous relevant studies published between 2018 and 2024 on the 2017 forecasts for 2025, only a limited number of prior works are discussed. The literature review needs to be expanded and structured into subsections (e.g., 2.1, 2.2) organized by key themes or technologies—collaborative robots, 3D printing, wearable technology, and AI integration—as introduced in this paper.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded and restructured the entire Literature Review section to meet the reviewer’s requirements. The section is now organized into three subsections (2.1, 2.2, and 2.3), each covering a distinct thematic area. Subsection 2.1 discusses all 14 intelligent technologies examined in both 2017 and 2025, supported by an updated, significantly broader set of references. Subsection 2.2 provides a comprehensive overview of AI-driven technologies, including predictive maintenance, computer vision, digital twins, RPA, AGVs, and other advanced solutions, drawing on relevant research published between 2018 and 2024. Subsection 2.3 offers a theoretical comparison between the foundational technologies of Industry 4.0 and the AI-driven technologies identified in 2025. This expanded structure substantially improves depth, clarity, and thematic alignment in the literature review (pages 4-7, lines 163-196, 247-271).

Comments 4: It is unclear why the Materials and Methods section starts with number 2. This numbering should be corrected or clarified.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we corrected the section numbering throughout the manuscript. The Materials and Methods section no longer begins with number 2. All sections have been renumbered sequentially to ensure a clear and logical structure.

Comments 5: Using the same research sample to enhance the validity of the longitudinal study is highly valuable. However, it is essential to clarify whether the actual respondents (those who completed the survey) were the same individuals as in 2017. Additionally, the paper should clearly indicate the exact periods during which the surveys were conducted in both 2017 and 2025.

We agree with this comment and have clarified both respondent continuity and the exact timing of the surveys. First, although the same 44 enterprises from the 2017 study were included again in 2025, not all individual respondents were identical. Most questionnaires in both years were completed by quality managers or managers responsible for quality governance. In four enterprises, the original respondents had moved internally to new managerial positions, but they remained eligible because they continued to oversee or interact with manufacturing and logistics processes. This information is now clearly presented in the revised respondent classification table and explained in the text (pages 9-10, lines 353–365).

Second, we explicitly added the survey period for both studies. The 2017 survey was conducted between November 2016 and March 2017, and the 2025 survey followed the exact timing, conducted between January and February 2025. This clarification has been added to the Materials and Methods section to improve transparency and ensure that readers understand the temporal alignment of both data collections.

Comments 6: The results and conclusion sections should further emphasize managerial and policy implications. Rather than merely comparing 2017 and 2025, the authors should discuss the insights the findings offer for policymakers and appropriate future research directions.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the Discussion sections to emphasize managerial and policy implications derived from the comparison of 2017 expectations and 2025 realities. The revised text discusses the impact of the findings for managers, identifies areas where policy support is needed, and outlines suitable directions for future research. These additions appear on page 19, lines 552-576 of the revised manuscript. The main implications are clearly presented in the Conclusion section.

Comments 7: Lastly, the study’s design and methodology appear overly simple. Therefore, it is necessary to include more detailed explanations demonstrating that respondent selection and survey conditions were strictly controlled.

We agree with the reviewer that the original study design appeared overly simple and therefore revised the “Materials and Methods” section extensively to demonstrate that respondent selection and survey conditions were strictly controlled. Several improvements were made:

1. Research design control
   We added a comprehensive schematic flowchart illustrating the entire research structure, including both sub-studies, all methodological stages, and the links to PO1–PO4 and RQ1–RQ3 (page 4, lines 155–156). This diagram clarifies the systematic and controlled nature of the research process.
2. Controlled sample structure
   A new table summarizing the distribution of enterprises across industry groups was added, together with the ∆ni analysis (pages 8-9, lines 316–332). We also explained why the same 44 enterprises from 2017 were used in 2025, emphasizing that maintaining the identical sample is essential for longitudinal validity (page 7, lines 280–295).
3. Strict respondent selection and classification
   We added a detailed explanation of how respondents were selected and classified, including a new table presenting the distribution of roles and the full contact protocol (pages 9-10, lines 353–365).
4. Strictly controlled survey procedure (Dillman method)
   We expanded the description of the Dillman Total Design Survey Method. We explained how it was applied in 2025, including the contact sequence, reminders, and standardized communication via a single dedicated email (page 9, lines 333–350). References 43 and 44 were added.
5. Clear explanation of the research matrix and variables
   We clarified the meaning of the expected deployment across 26 processes and confirmed that the entire research matrix is already shown in Table 4 (page 9, lines 339–344).
6. Comprehensive reconstruction of the entire Materials and Methods section
   The section was completely reorganized, expanded, and rewritten to improve transparency and rigor. A new Table 4 summarizing all methods and research stages has been added (line 366).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of the English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Without response.

5. Additional clarifications

No additional clarifications.