Assessment of the Benefits of the ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System: Insights from Selected Brazilian Logistics Experts: An Empirical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper lacks a clear definition of ISO/IEC 42001. Although the standard is mentioned multiple times, its core content and background are not adequately explained.

2. The introduction provides a broad description of the background related to artificial intelligence and the logistics field but does not sufficiently emphasize the unique characteristics of ISO/IEC 42001 or the specific research questions it addresses.

3. The literature review is somewhat fragmented and does not form a clear central narrative, making it difficult to highlight the core research theme. Although it discusses the application of AI in the logistics sector, the benefits of ISO standards, and general management systems, the sections are not tightly connected and fail to focus effectively on the integration of ISO/IEC 42001 with the logistics industry.

4. Some content in the literature review, such as the discussion on ISO 9001, is not strongly relevant to the theme. These sections should be streamlined or removed. The structure should be reorganized to clarify the main research focus and concentrate on the specific benefits and theoretical background of applying ISO/IEC 42001 in the logistics field.

5. The logic behind the questionnaire design is not explained in detail. For example, it is unclear whether the questions are based on the core content of ISO/IEC 42001 or how their validity and reliability are ensured.

6. The paper does not justify the use of the TOPSIS method or explain why it is preferable to alternative approaches.

7. The rationale behind assigning different weights to respondents based on their years of experience is not provided. This weighting approach could significantly influence the results and should be clarified.

8. The discussion of benefits is mainly based on the TOPSIS results but lacks a strong connection to the theoretical insights provided in the literature review. For example, why is "customer satisfaction" ranked first? Does this finding align with existing research?

9. The experimental results require more detailed analysis and interpretation.

10. Further improvements in the logical structure of the paper are necessary to ensure coherence and clarity across all sections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the considerations presented. These considerations have enabled a considerable improvement in our manuscript. We adjust according to your considerations. We list below all the considerations made and justify the actions taken. Thanks for your precious help.

Rebuttal items

Comments 1: The paper lacks a clear definition of ISO/IEC 42001. Although the standard is mentioned multiple times, its core content and background are not adequately explained.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. We agree, however, that we emphasize that this standard was created recently and consequently there are few documents published in the literature that address ISO/IEC 42001. Therefore, the strategy adopted was to comment on history in a broader way in relation to the importance of ISO standards. However, for this new version of the paper, we have added details about ISO 42001 in the introduction that were found in the recent literature. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 2: The introduction provides a broad description of the background related to artificial intelligence and the logistics field but does not sufficiently emphasize the unique characteristics of ISO/IEC 42001 or the specific research questions it addresses.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. In this new version of the paper, a definition of ISO/IEC 42001 found in the literature has been added. The research question has been highlighted in the introduction. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 3: The literature review is somewhat fragmented and does not form a clear central narrative, making it difficult to highlight the core research theme. Although it discusses the application of AI in the logistics sector, the benefits of ISO standards, and general management systems, the sections are not tightly connected and fail to focus effectively on the integration of ISO/IEC 42001 with the logistics industry.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. We agree, in this new version of the paper we sought to better connect the text of the literature review with the aim of improving the narrative. Regarding the integration of ISO/IEC 42001 with the logistics sector, we emphasize that this is a very current topic and that this relationship is rarely discussed in literature. This study is the first to make such a connection. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 4: Some content in the literature review, such as the discussion on ISO 9001, is not strongly relevant to the theme. These sections should be streamlined or removed. The structure should be reorganized to clarify the main research focus and concentrate on the specific benefits and theoretical background of applying ISO/IEC 42001 in the logistics field.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. In this new version of the paper, the paragraphs on ISO 9001 have been simplified/removed. Others have been added to dealing with the central theme. Please, check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 5: The logic behind the questionnaire design is not explained in detail. For example, it is unclear whether the questions are based on the core content of ISO/IEC 42001 or how their validity and reliability are ensured.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. As highlighted in the text of the methodological procedures section, the questionnaire questions are based on the benefits identified in the literature (see Table 1) and their validity and reliability are guaranteed since such issues are discussed in recent literature on the topic.

 

Comments 6: The paper does not justify the use of the TOPSIS method or explain why it is preferable to alternative approaches.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. In this new version of the paper, the justification for the use of TOPSIS was inserted in the methodological procedures section.

 

Comments 7: The rationale behind assigning different weights to respondents based on their years of experience is not provided. This weighting approach could significantly influence the results and should be clarified.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The justification behind assigning different weights to interviewees based on their years of experience is one of the initial steps in applying the TOPSIS method (defining the criteria and weights for each one). We understand that considering only the length of experience may be a limitation; however, we emphasize that the sample is composed of professionals who have knowledge on the subject. This action was based on previous publications that considered the length of experience as a criterion for exploratory studies such as ours. Here are some examples: https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6040078 and https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6030060.

 

Comments 8: The discussion of benefits is mainly based on the TOPSIS results but lacks a strong connection to the theoretical insights provided in the literature review. For example, why is "customer satisfaction" ranked first? Does this finding align with existing research?

Reply: Thanks for the comment. As mentioned, this is the first study to establish the relationship between ISO/IEC 42001 and logistics, and therefore, the discussions took on a more exploratory character to broaden debates in the context. Therefore, the results of TOPSIS were discussed in comparison with the existing literature, and a critical analysis of the importance of each benefit was made according to the ranking generated, highlighting at the end the implications for theory and practice.

 

Comments 9: The experimental results require more detailed analysis and interpretation.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. More discussions concerning the literature were added to the results. Please, check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 10: Further improvements in the logical structure of the paper are necessary to ensure coherence and clarity across all sections.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Improvements have been made to the logical structure of the article. Please, check this new version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presents a novel approach concerning the use of the ISO/IEC 42001 standard in logistics management. ISO/IEC 42001 has primarily been concentrated in the theoretical field, and this study verifies its decisive impact on the logistics sector within the Brazilian context using TOPSIS. Despite its novelty, the sample size is too small—only 44 logistics management professionals—to make inferences about the broader Brazilian reality. This is an empirical study. 

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Rebuttal Letter

 

Manuscript ID: standards-3269555

 

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the considerations presented. These considerations have enabled a considerable improvement in our manuscript. We adjust according to your considerations. We list below all the considerations made and justify the actions taken. Thanks for your precious help.

 

Reviewer comments: The work presents a novel approach concerning the use of the ISO/IEC 42001 standard in logistics management. ISO/IEC 42001 has primarily been concentrated in the theoretical field, and this study verifies its decisive impact on the logistics sector within the Brazilian context using TOPSIS. Despite its novelty, the sample size is too small—only 44 logistics management professionals—to make inferences about the broader Brazilian reality. This is an empirical study.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. We emphasize that this is an exploratory study and that despite the sample having 44 respondents, all of them are included in the context of the study and have knowledge and experience in the sector analyzed. Furthermore, as mentioned, a multicriteria analysis method widely used and accepted in the literature is used to interpret the data obtained. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Rebuttal items

 

Comments 1: Line 49 it is missing a dot.

“ing logistics [11]These concerns lie in ensuring the ethical and efficient implementation of “should be“

ing logistics [11]. These concerns lie in ensuring the ethical and efficient implementation of”.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Correction made. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 2: Line 77 to 79 the information is repited of line 67 to 69.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Correction made. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 3: Line 236 presents the methodology

Concerning Survey structuring and data collection ???

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Database information is presented further on, in lines 238-247.

 

Comments 4: Line 246 “a structured data collection instrument was developed based on the benefits identified in

the literature (table 1) … Then, using an online form using the Google Forms tool, the survey was

applied to 248

professionals working in the logistics sector in Brazil.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Yes.

 

Comments 5: the instrument should be provided as appendix or by link

line 251… resulting in 44 responses. This is a reduce number of responses… so in my opinion the paper should be rejected if the size sample can not be improved.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The link to access the questionnaire was made available in supplementary materials at the end of the article. Regarding the sample size, we emphasize that the respondents are professionals who have experience in the context and that the data collected via TOPSIS treatment converge towards an exploratory validation of a current topic that is little discussed in the literature.

 

Comments 6: 261 “For each of the benefits listed, the experts indicated on a scale of 0 to 10 how relevant that benefitis considered to be in promoting efficient logistics management in accordance with ISO Standard 42001.

262 why the scale is 0 to 10? Please justified it “For each of the benefits listed, the experts indicated

on a 261

262 The authors should explain and clarify how respondents know or have access to de ISO Standard 42001 or if the responses are merely based on the list of table 1, this is not clear “ how relevant that benefit is considered to be in promoting efficient logistics management in accordance with ISO Standard 42001”.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The scale from 0 to 10 was used following the recommendations of the TOPSIS reference that was considered in the article (https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6040078 and https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6030060). It is worth noting that the scale from 0 to 10 allows respondents to give their opinions more consistently on the item being analyzed. Regarding the knowledge of the respondents, we highlight that they all work in the Brazilian logistics sector and are aware of the importance of using artificial intelligence systems and are therefore able to analyze the benefits of the ISO 42001 standard for the logistics context.

 

Comments 7: Line 264 “The TOPSIS method (Method of Ordering Preferences by Similarity to the Ideal Solution)

But in line 214 “the Preference Method by Similarity to the Ideal Solution

(PROMETHEE) and the Analysis Method by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The expression should be corrected for Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Correction made. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 8: Line 270 TOPSIS structured a Matrix D (equation 1), …elements (xij) … the Xij should be in mathematics format

Line 282 …ideal positive (vj+) and negative (vj-) solutions, where these solutions represent the

maximum and minimum values values respectively in Matrix V for each of the analysis criteria. …

the Vj+ and vj- and V should be in mathematics format

Lines 287 - 288 The Vj+ and vj- the Ci* should be in the mathematics format

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Correction made. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 9: Line 307 “However, it can be seen that these benefits, with regard to ISO/IEC 42001, are only concentrated in the theoretical field, and in this study it was verified how decisive they are in the logistics sector in the Brazilian reality”… The authors should explain this sentence .. this means that the responses were based on the table 1 without the responders know or been used the Standard??.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The responses were based on the analysis by the responding professionals considering the items in table 1, taking into account their experience in such a context.

 

Comments 10: Line 317 (table 2) what are the Gis? Are the Xij? the G1 and G2 and G3 are those weights in line 271-273? Then authors should express it rephrasing line 278 into “In this study, the weights assigned were 50% for participants with more than 20 years' experience (G1), 30% for those with 11 to 19 years' experience (G2) and 20% for those with up to 10 years' experience (G3).

Reply: Thanks for the comment. These are the groups of respondents and their respective weights considering their time of experience. As detailed in the methodological section.

 

Comments 11: Lines 330, 341 Please revised all the values on the text for mathematics format.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Correction made. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Comments 12: Line 348 “Checking the first ranking of benefits by Brazilian logistics managers, four distinct…”

The authors can not enlarge the results for Brazilian logistics managers , four distinct groups of benefits were observed.… the sample is not significative to do so.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The sample presents the understanding of professionals working in the Brazilian logistics sector, has respondents from different regions of Brazil and even with 44 respondents, the results via TOPSIS treatment converge to a satisfactory result to be discussed with the literature. We emphasize that this paper has an exploratory character to broaden the debates in the context analyzed because it deals with a new topic and never discussed (relationship between ISO 42001 and logistics).

 

Comments 13: Line 396 “The analysis was based on a representative sample of professionals from different regions and levels of experience,….” I do not agree at all please explain how it is representative!?

Reply: Thanks for the comment. They are professionals who are experts and active in the Brazilian logistics sector and have different experiences in this context.

 

Comments 14: They say it later one:

“The main limitation is related to the size of the sample and the geographical distribution of the respondents, which, although comprehensive, still may not reflect all 409 the realities of the logistics sector in Brazil. In addition, the study focused exclusively on professionals' perceptions of the benefits of ISO/IEC 42001, without addressing the difficulties or challenges faced in its implementation. These limitations suggest the need for 412 further studies to complement the findings presented here.”

Reply: Thanks for the comment. We emphasize that this is an initial exploratory study on the topic. There are no other studies that make such a connection. The objective of this study is to broaden the debates in this context. The ISO IEC 42001 standard has been explored little in the literature. There are no studies relating ISO 42001 to logistics, it is unprecedented in the literature. The results are limited by the sample size but guarantee the debates in the context (objective of this study) and TOPSIS proved to be adequate in the treatment of the data.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded well to the comments

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much. These considerations have enabled considerable improvement in our paper.

 

Comments: The authors responded well to the comments.

Reply: Thanks for the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the manuscript has been improved, the main problem still relates to the sample size. As mentioned in the conclusions, this does not allow for the generalization of the results to Brazilian logistics professionals. This is the main issue!

It should be clear that this is an empirical study based on the sample, and the results are only valid for this specific group.

In section 3 - Methodology, page 236, the authors added a sentence, but it is still not clear how professionals, without knowledge or use of the standard, can provide values based only on Table 1. Additionally, the link provided by the authors for the questionnaire is not working, making it difficult to understand the results of the MCDA TOPSIS.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the considerations presented.

 

Reviewer comments: Although the manuscript has been improved, the main problem still relates to the sample size. As mentioned in the conclusions, this does not allow for the generalization of the results to Brazilian logistics professionals. This is the main issue!

Reply: Thanks for the comment. We emphasize that the sample is made up of professionals who have knowledge and experience of the Brazilian logistics context and who, therefore, can represent the sector in the context analyzed in this article. Regarding the sample size itself (44 professionals), we can highlight several other exploratory articles that were published in different scientific databases using the TOPSIS method and with a sample size close to that presented here, including articles from journals in the mdpi database as well. See:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2020-0091 (TOPSIS with 50 professionals);

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122762 (TOPSIS with 61 professionals);

https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6040078 (TOPSIS with 30 professionals);

https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics6030060 (TOPSIS with 38 professionals);

 

Reviewer comments: It should be clear that this is an empirical study based on the sample, and the results are only valid for this specific group.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. This information was inserted in the conclusion. See:

“Despite the significant contributions, the research has some limitations that should be considered. The main limitation is related to the size of the sample. It is important to note that this is an empirical study based on a sample, and the results are valid only for this specific group. In addition, the study focused exclusively on professionals' perceptions of the benefits of ISO/IEC 42001, without addressing the difficulties or challenges faced in its implementation. These limitations suggest the need for further studies to complement the findings presented here”.

 

Reviewer comments: In section 3 - Methodology, page 236, the authors added a sentence, but it is still not clear how professionals, without knowledge or use of the standard, can provide values based only on Table 1. Additionally, the link provided by the authors for the questionnaire is not working, making it difficult to understand the results of the MCDA TOPSIS.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Professionals have experience in the Brazilian logistics sector and therefore can assess the benefits of ISO 42001 for the sector, as they are familiar with the characteristics and specificities of the Brazilian logistics sector. This information is contained in the methodological section. Regarding the link, it has been reviewed and is now activated and available.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was improved. With the new title, my recommendation changes.

The title coud be: Assessment of the Benefits of the ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System: Insights from Selected Brazilian Logistics Experts: an emprical study 

It is still not clear the group assignments at Line 228.

Line 228: "In this study, the weights assigned were 50% for participants with more than 20 years' experience, 30% for those with 11 to 19 years' experience and 20% for those with up to 10 years' experience."

Please replace with: "In this study, the weights assigned were 50% for participants with more than 20 years' experience (G1), 30% for those with 11 to 19 years' experience (G2), and 20% for those with up to 10 years' experience (G3). Otherwise, it is difficult to understand Table 2."

Line 332-334: Now it is not necessary (repeated).

The authors present several references in Portuguese that can be an obstacle to explore them.

Author Response

Rebuttal Letter

 

Manuscript ID: standards-3269555

 

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the considerations presented.

 

Reviewer comments:

 

The paper was improved. With the new title, my recommendation changes.

The title coud be: Assessment of the Benefits of the ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System: Insights from Selected Brazilian Logistics Experts: an empirical study

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The title has been changed according to your suggestion. Check out this new version of the paper.

 

It is still not clear the group assignments at Line 228.

Line 228: "In this study, the weights assigned were 50% for participants with more than 20 years' experience, 30% for those with 11 to 19 years' experience and 20% for those with up to 10 years' experience."

Please replace with: "In this study, the weights assigned were 50% for participants with more than 20 years' experience (G1), 30% for those with 11 to 19 years' experience (G2), and 20% for those with up to 10 years' experience (G3). Otherwise, it is difficult to understand Table 2."

Reply: Thanks for the comment. The change was made exactly as you indicated. Please check this new version of the paper.

 

Line 332-334: Now it is not necessary (repeated).

Reply: Thanks for the comment. In this new version of the paper, the suggested exclusion was made.

 

The authors present several references in Portuguese that can be an obstacle to explore them.

Reply: Thanks for the comment. Among the 45 references used, only 3 are in Portuguese. We believe there is no obstacle to this, since the main references relating to the focus of the article are in English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf