Real-Time Decision-Support System for High-Mix Low-Volume Production Scheduling in Industry 4.0
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has a logical structure and is clearly, concisely and accurately written. I would suggest to update abstract to highlight most important findings of this research. The reviewed paper proposes an interesting problem, which is not only theoretically, but could be also practically important. The introduction part should be updated, the authors did not clearly show the difference between their approach and those in the literature. Complex and expanded state-of-the-art is needed. It would be interesting for readers if the paper include theoretical section about extended number of different potential practical applications of presented approach in different areas. I would suggest to add it. I also suggest author should add discussion about pros and cons of considered problem to clearly identify the benefits of the introduced approach. The findings are too much dependent on the case study to be generalized. Theoretical bounds or thresholds would greatly improve this study. Paper contains some amount of typos that need to be corrected throughout the paper. There are several minor language errors in the text. Some sentences require rewriting. Some acronyms were not defined. I strongly suggest to add all appropriate references from the list below:
10.24425/bpasts.2020.133126
10.3390/en13092249
10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.005
Author Response
Dear Handling Reviewer,
We have received the comments of the reviewers concerning our manuscript (Process-870067) titled "Real‐Time Decision Support System for HMLV Production Scheduling in the Industry 4.0".
We took into consideration all the remarks and questions of the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The modifications and the answers are included in the file attached
Yours sincerely,
Balázs Kocsi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
my recommendations:
- Please, note that article in the current state is more review like the article so I suggest you to change type, or in the chapter "4. Results", please highlight what is new about the proposed solution.
- The abstract (or Conclusions) could be extended about the possibility of a specific application of the proposed solution in practice.
- It would be advisable to create the algorithm (more detailed) of the proposed solution so that the reader from another professional area is easier to orient when studying the paper and results.
- The chapter "Literature review" is unusual for article type. This is the name of chapter in review type.
- Separate chapters "4. Results and Discussion".
- Unify: 43,2 percent / 43.2 percent (e.g. line 454 / 457), etc.
- Complete the chapter "5 Discussion" and "6 Conclusions" if it is possible about a description of the scientific and practical contribution of your solution.
- What is the grant number?
Kind regards
Author Response
Dear Handling Reviewer,
We have received the comments of the reviewers concerning our manuscript (Process-870067) titled "Real‐Time Decision Support System for HMLV Production Scheduling in the Industry 4.0".
We took into consideration all the remarks and questions of the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The modifications and the answers are included in the file attached
Yours sincerely,
Balázs Kocsi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is very expansive in words, but much lees accomplished in science and techniques. Some terms are not duly clarified. For instance what is the difference between tardiness and lateness? I would appreciate if the authors could outline their scientific findings. For instance, they should develop more their original concept of IoT if any. Their conclusions are diffuse and somewhat misleading. They should enhance them for the new version. Finally, though Not relevant, line 545 is not appropriate: Funding: “This research was funded by NAME OF FUNDER grant number XXX.”
Author Response
Dear Handling Reviewer,
We have received the comments of the reviewers concerning our manuscript (Process-870067) titled "Real‐Time Decision Support System for HMLV Production Scheduling in the Industry 4.0".
We took into consideration all the remarks and questions of the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The modifications and the answers are included in the file attached
Yours sincerely,
Balázs Kocsi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The revised version is aligned with my comments. I am OK with that.
I wish you good luck in further research.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
