Virtual Quality Gates in Manufacturing Systems: Framework, Implementation and Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is devoted to important issues of production quality. In a cyber-physical production environment, the issues of determining, predicting and modeling quality are becoming a priority. The authors describe the design assumptions for three production cases and on this basis try to formulate general conclusions.

General thoughts:

1. The work contains many abbreviations that are commonly used, but also many others that are less familiar. Authors should compile a list of abbreviations.
2. The work contains 55 references, but they are not discussed. The work is not therefore a literature review. Authors should clearly indicate what new they add, what constitutes their original development.
3. The work is of a very general nature, it is impossible to disagree with the presented summaries and discussions. It begins with the philosophy of CPS and CPPS, which runs through many pages and is theoretical, but as if it came from another work. The remaining chapters are also written in this convention. The work lacks purpose and specificity. The conclusions are also not specific.
4. The work is written with haste, many editing errors.

Author Response

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

thank you for reviewing the paper with the title “Virtual Quality Gates in Manufacturing Systems: Framework, Implementation and Potentials”.

In the following I will address the changes made due to the comments of the reviewer.

Reviewer

1. The work contains many abbreviations that are commonly used, but also many others that are less familiar. Authors should compile a list of abbreviations.

Abbreviations are correctly inserted into the body text. Unclear terms have been defined in the paper to make the paper easier to understand.

2. The work contains 55 references, but they are not discussed. The work is not therefore a literature review. Authors should clearly indicate what new they add, what constitutes their original development.

The focus of the paper is not a literature review. The focus of the paper is to support the planning and implementation of virtual quality gates. Therefore, a morphological box is developed which can be used to identify and derive an individual approach for a virtual quality gate based on the specific characteristics and requirements of the respective manufacturing system. Moreover, the framework is exemplified by three case studies from various industries and resulting potentials are discussed. However, an extensive literature review was added in chapter 3.

3. The work is of a very general nature, it is impossible to disagree with the presented summaries and discussions. It begins with the philosophy of CPS and CPPS, which runs through many pages and is theoretical, but as if it came from another work. The remaining chapters are also written in this convention. The work lacks purpose and specificity. The conclusions are also not specific.

The objectives and field of action were added in chapter 3. Moreover, the framework in chapter 4 has been written more specific to virtual quality gates. The use cases underline the specificity of the framework.

4. The work is written with haste, many editing errors.

The paper was checked for grammar and spelling.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses and defines essential elements of virtual quality gates in the context of manufacturing systems. Contributions are related to three case studies related to battery manufacturing, die casting, and complete manufacturing system analysis.  

Virtual Quality Gates bear significant potential to improve the quality management and can strongly contribute towards zero-defect strategies in Industry 4.0.

The technical framework of VQG has been correctly adapted from the author’s previous work, where “feedback/control” has been substituted by “decision support”. I would like the authors to express the rational of this adaptation, and why a direct application of the flow of assessment procedure [10] is not valid.

A similarity check provided by the Turnitin tool resulted in less 12% of content similar to other Internet sources. This very low rate ensures the originality of the paper.

In case study I, please highlight in bold the VQG levels: physical world, data acquisition, cyber world, and decision support, as was done in the other two case studies.

A profound review is needed for English corrections. Some corrections:

Sentence in abstract: “To support the implementation, a morphological box as a guided framework virtual quality gates as decision support is given”. Is not clear, simplify.

to discuss and defined -> to discuss and define

It directly can affect -> It can directly affect

VWG is not defined in the paper.

Note.js -> Node.js

Author Response

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

thank you for reviewing the paper with the title “Virtual Quality Gates in Manufacturing Systems: Framework, Implementation and Potentials”.

In the following I will address the changes made due to the comments of the reviewer.

1. In case study I, please highlight in bold the VQG levels: physical world, data acquisition, cyber world, and decision support, as was done in the other two case studies.

VQG levels were highlighted in bold.

2. A profound review is needed for English corrections. Some corrections:

The paper was checked for grammar and spelling.

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulation, very interesting and professional paper. 

The only suggestion: please separate  Discussion section and Conclusion 

Also suggest to develop discussion in relation to comparision to previous studies as well as develop the Conclusion with some more recommendations 

Author Response

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

thank you for reviewing the paper with the title “Virtual Quality Gates in Manufacturing Systems: Framework, Implementation and Potentials”.

In the following I will address the changes made due to the comments of the reviewer.

1. The only suggestion: please separate Discussion section and Conclusion
   
   Discussion and conclusion section were separated.
   
2. Also suggest to develop discussion in relation to comparision to previous studies as well as develop the Conclusion with some more recommendations
   
   An extensive literature review has been performed and approaches have been discussed in section 3. More recommendations were added to the conclusion.

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of this manuscript is interesting, which fits to the scope of JMMP. Comments:

• Abstract should be improved, e.g., adding sentences showing the research details.
• In Sec. 2.1, human’ roles cannot be ignored. Therefore, human-cyber-physical systems (HCPS) should be mentioned and cited. Related papers include: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809919306514, and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809917308652.
• Please beautify Fig. 8 with higher resolution.
• In Sec. 5, regarding the further research direction, how about the potential of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in VQG within mfg. systems?

Author Response

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

thank you for reviewing the paper with the title “Virtual Quality Gates in Manufacturing Systems: Framework, Implementation and Potentials”.

In the following I will address the changes made due to the comments of the reviewer.

1. Abstract should be improved, e.g., adding sentences showing the research details.

Abstract has been reworked and research details have been added.

2. In Sec. 2.1, human’ roles cannot be ignored. Therefore, human-cyber-physical systems (HCPS) should be mentioned and cited. Related papers include: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809919306514, and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809917308652.

Humans are part of the VQG concept. The mentioned papers were included and considered in the literature research.

3. Please beautify Fig. 8 with higher resolution.

Figure 8 has been added with higher resolution.

4. In Sec. 5, regarding the further research direction, how about the potential of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in VQG within mfg. systems?

Potentials of AI, ML and DL have been mentioned and discussed in section 6.

Reviewer 5 Report

For manufacturing companies, the area of virtual tools and digitalization as a key part of industry 4.0 reach high importance. At present days there are implemented or in the implementation phase lot of virtual systems, not only CPPS. The whole paper includes several errors, which decrease its scientific quality:

• In Abstract there is no mention of the objective. In chapter 3 there is no obvious description of the objective of the research and paper.
• According to the text in chapter 3, the authors probably used qualitative research methods without any statistical evaluation. Unfortunately, it is difficult to say, what kind of research methods they employed and in which industry. This part has to be developed.
• The last chapter of the paper is Discussion. I lack a chapter Conclusion.
• Paper is not in the journal template.
• At the same time, the authors mix two quotation styles.

After correction paper could be accepted as average one.

Author Response

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

thank you for reviewing the paper with the title “Virtual Quality Gates in Manufacturing Systems: Framework, Implementation and Potentials”.

In the following I will address the changes made due to the comments of the reviewer.

• In Abstract there is no mention of the objective. In chapter 3 there is no obvious description of the objective of the research and paper.

The objective of the paper has been detailed within the abstract. A new chapter 3 with focus on literature research and the derivation of research gap was added. 5 main objectives of VQG were added.

• The last chapter of the paper is Discussion. I lack a chapter Conclusion.

A new chapter 5 for conclusion and discussion was added next to the outlook in chapter 6.

• Paper is not in the journal template.

Paper has been adapted to the journal template.

• At the same time, the authors mix two quotation styles.

Quotation styles were checked and standardized.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper meets all requirements of scientific journals and could be published.