Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Other Industry 4.0 Technologies in Spare Parts Warehousing in the Oil and Gas Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

thank you for a thorough quality review of our research. We appreciate your time and effort.

Below follows a point-by-point response to your review.

• The language has been revised to the best of our ability. Unnecessary filler words have been removed, and complicated sentences have been reduced to convey the message better. In case more language revision is needed from your viewpoint we are willing to use Logistics' English language revision service.
• The following requests were made in your review, and here is how we have addressed them:
  • Paradigm shifts we foresee are now addressed in Section 5: Practical Implications in the paper
  • IIoT's influence on optimization is now addressed in Section 5: Practical Implications in the paper
  • Research gaps encountered in this research are now addressed in Section 5: Practical Implications and Section 6: Conclusion
  • Broader trends of I4.0 implementation across industries are now addressed in Section 5: Practical Implications

We thank you once more for your review. If you have more suggestions for improvement we are happy to receive them to increase the quality of our paper.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear respected authors,

The content of the manuscript should be improved. Please consider the following remarks:

1. According to the title, the emphasis is on warehousing, it is recommended to mention the importance of warehousing in the first two sentences of the abstract section to maintain coherence among them and in the third sentence in this section.
2. It is recommended to hesitate to use “we” or “our” in a scientific article.
3. Since the respected author(s) performed a literature survey study, the novelty mentioned in the abstract section needs to be revised.
4. As mentioned in the manuscript, 126 studies have been covered by respected authors, but according to the used references, there are 144 references. Hence, this information should be corrected, or the sentence should be revised.
5. The keywords should be selected based on the importance and frequent repetition of the phrases. From this point of view, the phrase “smart warehouse management” needs to be revised or eliminated from the list.
6. In line 42, mentioning "IIoT," which is the short form of Industrial Internet of Things, is redundant as it has been previously defined in the text.
7. In line 16, it is suggested to modify the referencing type to [17–19]. For this case, please check the referencing style of the respected logistics journal and check the whole manuscript.
8. It is recommended to enrich Figure 2 by mentioning the number of publications in each year in the figure.
9. It is suggested to write the journal names mentioned in Table 1 in columns or in a better format for ease of readability.
10. Table 2 should be placed before Figure 3.
11. What is the reason, or motivation, of the respected authors to define the abbreviation SPI for spare parts intralogistics when it has not been used in the manuscript at all? Similarly, the Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) Please check the other abbreviations in the text from this point of view.
12. In Table 3, it is recommended to make a list for the tight column of the table. It is suggested to mention each benefit in a separate row for ease of readability. In addition, the width of the first and second columns can be decreased, and the third column can be wider.
13. Both “Industry 4.0’s technologies” and “Industry 4.0 technologies” have been used in the text. It is suggested that we unify them.
14. Considering the mentioned research questions at the end of the Introduction section, there should be a section to answer or refer the findings to separately.

The English level of the manuscript should be improved.

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

thank you for a thorough quality review of our research. We appreciate your time and effort.

Below follows a point-by-point response to your review.

1. Warehousing is now mentioned early in the abstract.
2. "We" and "our" have been removed from the paper.
3. The novelty aspect of the abstract has been revised.
4. The number of references in the text has been changed to fit the number of references at the end of the paper.
5. The keyword "smart warehouse management" has been removed.
6. The explanation of IIoT in line 42 has been removed.
7. The reference style in line 16 has been changed. 
8. Figure 2 has been enriched with year of publication.
9. Table 1 has been altered to show the journal names more clearly.
10. Table 2 has been placed before Figure 3 (now Figure 4).
11. The SPI and WSN abbreviations have been removed.
12. Table 3 has been changed according to the review comments.
13. Reference to Industry 4.0 technologies have been changed some places in the text.
14. The research questions have been addressed more clearly in Sections 5 and 6 in the paper.

We thank you once more for your valuable review. If there are more suggestions for improvement we would be happy to receive them to improve the quality of our paper.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Very good paper, but it can be improved.

1- In tables 3 (Benefice) and 5 challenges), all other tables, the authors can group the information’s by type of benefice and type of Challenges instead of presenting the information by author. It will be easier to analyses the data and to understand batter.

2- In section 4.4 (Challenges and opportunity, the author presented only challenges.

3- How can we gain from publications in other fields than oil and gaz.? Which field is closer to the field under study.

4- the paper needs to be restructured.

5- Tables and figures are hard to read. needs some improvement, presentation or format wise.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

thank you for a thorough quality review of our research. We appreciate your time and effort.

Below follows a point-by-point response to your review.

• The tables showing benefits and challenges of I4.0 technologies implementation have been altered to show each point better. 
• Section 4.4 only presents challenges, as explained in the section title.
• Other industries' experiences with I4.0 technologies implementation are provided in Section 5: Practical implications.
• The paper has been reorganized and altered to be more comprehensive and readable.
• Tables and figures have been altered for ease of reading.

We thank you once more for your review. If you have further suggestions for improvement we would be happy to receive them anytime.

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

We appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript. Your topic aligns well with our journal's focus, offering a pertinent perspective on advancements in logistics and supply chain management, especially in the application of advanced technologies in a key industrial sector.

·         Abstract Evaluation: The abstract effectively sets the stage for your analysis, highlighting the study's significance and the research gap it addresses. However, we recommend refining the language for clarity, particularly regarding your research methodology, and avoiding overly positive adjectives.

·         Introduction Analysis: Your introduction effectively identifies a significant research gap and outlines the paper's scope. However, our search on Scopus suggests a potential underrepresentation of available literature. A more comprehensive literature search, possibly across various databases, is advised. Additionally, a more detailed contextualization of the challenges in the oil and gas industry’s warehousing sector, clearer methodological overview, and explicit connection between research questions and the literature gap would strengthen your introduction. We also suggest enhancing the writing style for improved flow and avoiding repetition.

·         Methodology Review: While outlining the basic process of a systematic literature review, your methodology lacks in adherence to PRISMA guidelines and thoroughness. We advise more detailed selection criteria for your literature search and screening, a precise explanation of analysis methods, and consideration of multiple literature sources beyond Scopus. Improvements in these areas would enhance the credibility and scientific legitimacy of your review.

·         Content Analysis Feedback: The content analysis provides a broad overview but lacks critical depth and industry-specific focus. We recommend a more methodologically rigorous and integrative approach.

·         Practical Implications Suggestions: The practical implications section could benefit from further depth and alignment with industry-specific aspects. Detailed analyses, case studies, risk assessments, and quantitative metrics would enhance the practical value of your findings.

·         Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Work Evaluation: The conclusion, while summarizing the study effectively, requires a more detailed and critical reflection on the study's limitations, a stronger linkage to practical implications, and a more explicit connection to the broader field of study.

We believe that addressing these points will greatly enhance the impact and relevance of your work.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

thank you for a thorough quality review of our research. We appreciate your time and effort.

Below follows a point-by-point response to your review.

• The abstract has been altered for more clarity. Language has been changed to be clearer, and some restructuring has been done. 
• The introduction has been somewhat altered. The reason Scopus is the only database used for the literature search is that the company of my (corresponding author) employment only offers free access to Scopus / ScienceDirect. Other relevant databases in this field were denied access due to missing subscriptions from the company such databases were attempted used in the beginning of the research work. Scopus was used due to convenience and practicality. If there was access to other databases the corresponding author would have used more to enhance the literature search.
• The methodology section has been revised. The methods used and the selection criteria are now clearly explained. 
• The content analysis has been revised. We have opted to use critical approaches to the literature search mostly in sections 5 and 6.
• The further depth sought from section 5 has been included.
• The conclusion has been altered to draw links between results, future work, and practical implications. 

We thank you once again for your detailed revision. If you have more suggestions for improvement we would be happy to receive them and use them for further improvement.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please provide the response to reviewer.

Please provide the response to reviewer.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

We submit a revised version of the paper on 8 January. Some of the changes from the previous revision are as follows:

• expanded literary search. In addition to Scopus, a literature search has been conducted on Web of Science. We hope this adds to the analytical depth of the work.
• tables have been edited for improved readability.
• some figures have been edited for improved readability. 
• there is now a correlation between the mentions of cited papers: the numbers mentioned in the abstract, methodology, and references are the same.
• text editing.

If our paper requires more revision, please do not hesitate to inform us of this. We would be happy to learn from your expertise.

Thank you and best wishes,

authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear respected authors,

1. The revision of the content of the manuscript has been done well.
2. The representation of the tables needs to be improved. As there are some sentences in the tables, it is suggested to decrease the size of some columns containing numbers (please see Table 1) or citations (please see Tables 3, 5, 6, and 7). For the latter, just the number of references is enough, and mentioning the names of the authors of the studies is redundant.
3. In line 189, the titles of Figure 3 and Table 2 have been mixed.
4. There is no need to add bullet points in the tables or add list-left justifications to give a better view (please see Tables 3 and 5).
5. Table 4 needs a serious revision.

A minor English revision is needed.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

We submit a revised version of the paper on 8 January. Some of the changes from the previous revision are as follows:

1. manuscript content has been revised further.
2. the representation of the tables have been improved. This includes placement, line spacing, column size, and content.
3. the error in line 189 is fixed.
4. the bullet points in the tables have been removed.
5. the mentioned table has been revised.

Other revision work includes the following:

• expanded literary search. In addition to Scopus, a literature search has been conducted on Web of Science. We hope this adds to the analytical depth of the work. 
• there is now a correlation between the mentions of cited papers: the numbers mentioned in the abstract, methodology, and references are the same.
• some language editing.

If our paper requires more revision, please do not hesitate to inform us of this. We would be happy to hear further suggestions shall you have any.

Thank you and best wishes,

authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Improvement are made, but tables still hard to read. The Autor’s put emphases on Authors and not on the results we want to know.

I believe that it is easier and more profitable to put in the first column of the tables the most important results we want to know and regroup in the cases the authors that mention those results. Just a suggestion.

The form shroud be improved 

There are repetition in the text.

The paper should be edited for English language.

The paper should be edited for English language.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

We hereby submit a revised version of our paper on 8 January. Following improvements have been made:

• the readability of the tables have been improved.
• table columns (and their content) have been reorganized according to reviewer's suggestions
• the form has been edited for improvement
• repetition has been attempted minimized / removed
• some language editing has been conducted. We have been informed that language editing can take place later in collaboration with the journal, and we currently await this option. Therefore, the final version's language can be expected to be better.

Other revision work includes the following:

• expanded literary search. In addition to Scopus, a literature search has been conducted on Web of Science. We hope this adds to the analytical depth of the work. 
• there is now a correlation between the mentions of cited papers: the numbers mentioned in the abstract, methodology, and references are the same.

If our paper requires more revision, please do not hesitate to inform us of this. We would be happy to hear further suggestions if you have any.

Thank you and best wishes,

authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

• The authors have made partial improvements to the abstract, introduction, and methodology by addressing some of my initial suggestions. However, these sections still lack sufficient depth and methodological rigor.
• There are serious contradictions within the manuscript, such as differing numbers of analyzed papers stated in the abstract versus the methodology section, that undermine confidence in the accuracy of the reported research.
• The authors' justification for relying solely on Scopus as the literature search database due to accessibility limitations is unconvincing. A more diligent effort to access multiple relevant databases through institutional subscriptions or partnerships should be made to ensure a rigorous methodology.
• The literature review remains fairly superficial with little critical integration of prior literature. A more rigorous analysis and a truly integrative approach are needed.
• The content analysis lacks depth. It is limited to a descriptive enumeration of benefits and challenges without providing critical analysis.
• The practical implications are too generic and do not focus adequately on the specific context of the oil and gas industry.
• The discussion and conclusions are quite superficial and do not properly establish the limitations of the study nor propose solid future research avenues.

In summary, while the authors' efforts to improve the manuscript are appreciated, the changes have not been sufficient to raise the quality of the paper to the level required by the journal. I recommend focusing efforts on thoroughly revising the manuscript to improve the methodology, analysis, and discussion as outlined above rather than resubmitting prematurely. I wish you the very best as you continue to develop this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

We hereby submit a revised version of our paper on 8 January. The following improvements have been made:

• the readability of tables and figures have been improved.
• the form has been edited for improvement
• some language editing has been conducted. We have been informed that language editing can take place later in collaboration with the journal, and wish to use this option. Therefore, the final version's language can be expected to be better than it is today.
• expanded literary search. In addition to Scopus, a literature search has been conducted on Web of Science. We hope this adds to the analytical depth of the work. 
• there is now a correlation between the mentions of cited papers: the number mentioned in the abstract, methodology, and references is the same.
• the practical implications section has been expanded with some relevant information from the oil and gas industry in Norway. However, due to limitations on sharing information in open access channels, this information is not as extensive as one may wish. We believe the information currently provided contributes positively to the section and the paper.
• all sections have been edited. Please view the revised manuscript for details.

If our paper requires more revision, please do not hesitate to inform us of this. We would be happy to hear further suggestions if you have any.

Thank you and best wishes,

authors.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the revised version of your manuscript "Industrial Internet of Things and Other Industry 4.0 Technologies in Spare Parts Warehousing in the Oil and Gas Industry: A Systematic Literature Review." I appreciate you taking the effort to incorporate some changes based on my initial feedback. However, I am sorry to say that, in my point of view, the manuscript in its current form still does not meet the expectations for publication in this journal due to several major issues that need further work:

• The systematic review methodology requires reconstruction as per standards like PRISMA to improve rigor and transparency. Details are needed on the literature search, screening, inclusion criteria, data extraction, and synthesis (http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_checklist.pdf)
• The literature analysis needs to go beyond descriptive summarization to include critical appraisal and synthesis of findings. Interpreting, critiquing and synthesizing results is important.
• More thoughtful and in-depth critical discussion is needed overall analyzing trends, debates, limitations, and future directions.
• Additionally, language editing remains a priority to improve readability.

In summary, substantial reworking is required focused on methodology, critical analysis, practical relevance, depth of discussion, and language. I hope these comments are constructive and wish you the very best moving forward.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

thank you for your highly useful review.

Due to some unforeseen events in the past couple of weeks, only one aspect of your review comments are addressed in our latest version due to time limitation. The methodology section has been expanded in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The purpose of this is for the methodology to become more transparent for the reader.

The limited review of this version does not mean we will not address your other comments. We agree with your comment on the consolidation having to be more rigorous and analytical. We have therefore highlighted the changes in red (methodology and abstract). No other changes have been made in this version, so the rest of the paper must not be read at this time.

We hand in this version prematurely due to the 10 day deadline. We have saved the respected reviewer's comments from all the review rounds and will spend the upcoming week editing the remainder of the paper according to these. If there is need to comment on the edited methodology we welcome these comments - we then conduct a 4th round of review to complete the paper.

Thank you again for the work - it greatly helps our paper.

Best regards,

the authors.