Factories of the Future in Digitization of Industrial Urban Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the future factory of digital industrial city, and explores the realization principle and theoretical framework. However, the article still needs to be modified in the following aspects:

1.  It is necessary to supplement the implementation process of the future factory.

2. It is necessary to clarify the technology and its working principle needed to realize the future factory.

3. It is necessary to supplement the scene and mode of the future factory.

4. The article needs to modify the language a lot to improve readability.

5. Although the article discusses challenges in the integration process, including technology interoperability, data governance and privacy, and talent development, there is insufficient discussion of specific strategies and approaches on how to address these challenges.

6. When discussing future research directions, the article proposes developing scalable integration models and evaluating economic and social impacts, but it does not give specific implementation steps or methods, making this part of the article seem abstract.

7. It is suggested to add more articles that respond to the internal logic of the article. For example, add the logic diagram of the method in the method section.

8. The article is text description, lack of quantitative analysis proposed in the method, it is recommended to add. For example, "Utilising BIM and digital twin simulations, we predicted a 20-30% improvement in resource efficiency and a 15-25% reduction in carbon emissions for urban manufacturingsites adopting BIM. emissions for urban manufacturingsites adopting integrated digital technologies...." Lack of detail description.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you for your kind comments. Please check the current version, revised according to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors present the principles and framework on integrating FoF into Smart Cities, fostering a symbiotic relationship between industrial production and urban development. I have several comments for the authors, aimed at enhancing the overall quality and readability of the framework appealing paper.

Backgrounds and Literature Review:

1. The backgrounds and literature review in this manuscript appear somewhat broad and detached from the specific focus of the study. It seems that the research has overlooked relevant literature concerning the digital transition in AI-assisted field, despite these being central to the study's objectives.

2. The background section lacks logical cohesion. For instance, the discussion of DT appears somewhat tangential to the whole content. Furthermore, the necessity on specific evidence or clarification of underlying reasons behind urban digitalization trends and its relationship with smart cities should be further clarified.

3. Attention should be given to proper citation of standard literature sources when analyzing various detailed elements within the context of digital transformation. For instance, both the "blueprint for future urban-industrial symbiosis" content lack references or benchmarks comparison.

Research Questions:

The research question presented in this paper lacks clarity and specificity. It is advisable to provide a clear and detailed description of the research question and the study objectives in both the abstract and introduction sections. This will help readers understand the focus and scope of the research from the outset. Specially for the detailed "framework" or "blueprint" descriptions in scientific view.

Methods and Results Details:

1. To enhance the credibility and replicability of the research, it is advisable to provide more detailed information about the methodology used for data collection and analysis, particularly in the materials section. Including such details would offer readers a clearer understanding of the materials and analytical strategies.

2. Please restructure the results part with clear subsections. The present form only comprises 3.1 on BIM?

3. Strengthen the results part with added several specific practices or application cases or roadshows to illustrate the Smart City design or planning examples with advanced digital techs.

The conclusion lacks logical coherence, leaving readers unsure of the author's intended response. Furthermore, there is a lack of discussion and engagement with existing research, and no reflection on potential avenues for future research in related areas. To improve this section, it is recommended to provide a clear and concise summary that directly addresses the research topic, while also discussing how the findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Additionally, outlining potential areas for future research can enhance the overall quality and relevance of the conclusions. The present form is more like a brief summary, rather than academic conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you for your kind comments. Please check the current version, revised according to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comments:

The subject of the article is very interesting and topical. The issue of Smart Cities concept and digitization/integration within regions are not a new, but still very interesting topic that requires intensive research. However, due to the significant number of publications devoted to the topic it is necessary to precisely specify the research gap and how it will be filled with the research undertaken.

In my opinion this article needs major improvements. The authors undertake an ambitious goal and use several research techniques to achieve it. In my opinion, the description of the research method is not precise enough. It is described very generally. It is impossible to conclude from it whether specific goals have been achieved correctly. It is not known what criteria the authors used to obtain the results. In my opinion, due to the very wide scope of the presented research, there is a need to more precisely define the research gap that the authors undertook to fill, perhaps by listing the research questions and referring to them in the methodological part. This will make it easier to assess whether they have been achieved correctly.

The paper is very interesting; but in my view, it needs to be improved to reach the standard required for publication in this journal.

Specific comments:

I hope this paper will be published. However, I suggest considering following specific comments:

·         Introduction: due to the very wide scope of the presented information I propose to include a list of specific goals that researchers have undertaken.

·         Materials and Methods.

a.       Systematic literature review: In my opinion, it is necessary to specify more precisely how authors understand the "combination" of words used to identify publications that are important in their opinion. Do they refer to "keywords", abstract content, etc. Does this mean that all of them must appear in the same article... Did the authors use Boolean operators?

b.      Inductive Analysis: What criteria were used to identify the most important issues of the topic?

c.       Analytical and Simulation Tools: What exactly software was used and what versions. What variables were considered? What was the subject/object of this research?

d.      Stakeholder Analysis: the assumptions of the analysis are missing. How were they identified/analyzed?

e.       Data Analysis: a more precise description is required.

f.        For authors to consider: Perhaps a graphical/tabular representation of the research method would help readers more easily understand the process of achieving the desired results?

·         Results: Some results are presented too concise. There is no information on how they were obtained.

o   Inductive Analysis Findings: Does the three primary themes distilled based on one publication?

o   Stakeholder Analysis Conclusions: what were the assumptions of the analysis?

·         Discussion: there are no references to research conducted by other authors.

·         Conclusions: There is no description of the limitations of the conducted research.

I would like to thank the authors for their work in preparing this article and see this manuscript published but considering at least the above suggestions.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you for your kind comments. Please check the current version, revised according to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A new version of the manuscript has been responded to and revised, and is recommended for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for the reviews. As recommended by the reviewers we clarified the Inductive Analysis process in lines 246-298 and checked clarity in all the parts of the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has been improved greatly according to the last review reports.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for the reviews. As recommended by the reviewers we clarified the Inductive Analysis process in lines 246-298 and checked clarity in all the parts of the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can bee seen big, positive difference in the current version of the article. Most of the comments were taken ino consideration. The article is the authors' original product, so it should, to some extent, reflect their method of conducting and publishing their research. What is difficult to accept is the lack of objective arguments for the results obtained, as I mentioned in the first round of the review. Especially for Inductive Analysis Findings. In my opinion, to ensure readability for readers on the one hand, and the journal's requirements on the other, it is necessary to specify the process of achieving the Inductive Analysis results. It is required that the authors describe in more detail the process of selecting the primary topics discussed in Inductive Analysis. In my opinion, what is required is at least a description of all identified topics and a clear presentation of the process of selecting those considered by the authors to be the most important. It is unknown what other topics competed with those selected and why these three were selected.

Author Response

Thank you for the reviews. As recommended by the reviewers we clarified the Inductive Analysis process in lines 246-298 and checked clarity in all the parts of the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf