Personalizing Industrial Maintenance Operation Using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: "Personalizing Industrial Maintenance Operation using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity" is interesting and timely. In my opinion, the manuscript is good and has potential for publication. The issues addressed in the manuscript are highly topical, but the manuscript currently requires several revisions and improvements. I provide the most important comments below: 

• I recommend that the abstract be modified to include specific results, and further, the main aim of the manuscript should be added.
• After reading the manuscript, I have the impression that this is not a research manuscript, but a professional manuscript. I miss the structure of IMRAD especially the methods used section.
• Part 1. Introduction - is from line 24-144, yet the authors used only 4 sources in the whole introduction... I do not find the above fact appropriate. The authors should have given only a brief introduction to the topic in the introduction and then should have written a Theoretical Background, which would have included literature sources ideally from scientific databases (WOS and SCOPUS). 
      The authors mention the term Industry 4.0 in the abstract and keywords, but overall we do not learn much about the concept.
• Overall, the structure of the sources used is inadequate with respect to the issue at hand only 8 out of 25 sources are post-2020. I consider this to be inadequate even considering the small number of sources used.
• Section 3. MHC and its Applicability in Maintenance Procedures - presents methods and methodology, but I recommend the authors to revise the whole section to the classical methodology.
• Table 3: illegible (overlapping names), Table 4: small font - illegible, etc.
• Section 4. Application Results - is fine for me and does not require revision from my perspective.
• Section 5. Discussion - is the worst part of the manuscript. In my opinion, it is not a discussion. Where do the authors discuss? The discussion should include a comparison of one's own findings with those of other authors... it is more about the findings.
•  Section 6. Conclusions - I recommend adding the limits of the research! Also the future research section needs to be added.

Overall, I rate the paper as a good professional manuscript. Personally, however, I am of the opinion that the authors need to make several edits to make the manuscript meet the standards for a scientific article. I wish the authors the best of luck in their future research. 

Author Response

% Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

%Quality of English Language
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes    | Can be improved    | Must be improved    | Not applicable
%Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
%Is the research design appropriate?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )
%Are the methods adequately described?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
%Are the results clearly presented?
(x)    ( )    ( )    ( )
%Are the conclusions supported by the results?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled: "Personalizing Industrial Maintenance Operation using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity" is interesting and timely.
In my opinion, the manuscript is good and has potential for publication. The issues addressed in the manuscript are highly topical, but the manuscript currently requires several revisions and improvements. I provide the most important comments below: 

I recommend that the abstract be modified to include specific results, and further, the main aim of the manuscript should be added.
    R: Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the abstract accordingly.

After reading the manuscript, I have the impression that this is not a research manuscript, but a professional manuscript. I miss the structure of IMRAD especially the methods used section.
    R: Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the structure of the manuscript, hightlightening scientific motivation, novelty, state of the art and references.
  

Part 1. Introduction - is from line 24-144, yet the authors used only 4 sources in the whole introduction... I do not find the above fact appropriate. The authors should have given only a brief introduction to the topic in the introduction and then should have written a Theoretical Background, which would have included literature sources ideally from scientific databases (WOS and SCOPUS). 
    R: thank you for the comment. We revised the initial part of the work accordingly

The authors mention the term Industry 4.0 in the abstract and keywords, but overall we do not learn much about the concept.
    R: Thank you for the comment. A new subsection was added "1.3 Maintenance Instructions in the 4.0 Industry", clarifying the contents of the paper within the context of Industry 4.0.

Overall, the structure of the sources used is inadequate with respect to the issue at hand only 8 out of 25 sources are post-2020. I consider this to be inadequate even considering the small number of sources used.
    R: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We updated the references as suggested.

Section 3. MHC and its Applicability in Maintenance Procedures - presents methods and methodology, but I recommend the authors to revise the whole section to the classical methodology.
    R: Thank you for the suggestion. We moved the MHC to Section 2. And adjusted it for its applicability to the maintenance instructions problem.

Table 3: illegible (overlapping names), Table 4: small font - illegible, etc.
    R: Thank you for the suggestion. We reformatted the tables to improve readability.

Section 4. Application Results - is fine for me and does not require revision from my perspective.
    R: Thank you for the observation.

Section 5. Discussion - is the worst part of the manuscript. In my opinion, it is not a discussion. Where do the authors discuss? The discussion should include a comparison of one's own findings with those of other authors... it is more about the findings.
    R: Thank you for the suggestion. We thoroughly revised and extended the discussions part. This resulted in section "5. Discussion".

Section 6. Conclusions - I recommend adding the limits of the research!  Also the future research section needs to be added.
    R: Thank you for the suggestion. We edited the final comments and extended the discussion. This is located in section "5.2. Remaining Challenges and Areas for Improvement".

Overall, I rate the paper as a good professional manuscript. Personally, however, I am of the opinion that the authors need to make several edits to make the manuscript meet the standards for a scientific article.
    R: Thank you for the note. Considering your assessment and our revision, we believe we accomplish just that.

I wish the authors the best of luck in their future research. 
    R: Thank you for your revision and insight. It helped us to improve our work and the way it is presented.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The paper is probably very valuable for practitioners working in maintenance. However, I am much more concerned about the scientific contribution of the paper.  

Firstly, the introduction should contain the background and research problem and questions – the reason why the authors are writing the paper. The introduction is only about the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC). The description of the model is tangled, and the reader gets lost in the beginning. I suggest writing an introduction about the maintenance, why it is important, and what the authors wish to achieve. MHC could be moved into section 1.2-1.3  – or into a separate section 2.

Secondly, the bridge between the MHC and the practical part of the paper seems rather unclear. The MHC theory looks superimposed. I wonder if the authors have found the theory after they did the practical work and tried to justify it with the theory. They should make it much more clear how the theory builds the basis of the rest of the paper.

As such the maintenance model the authors present in section 3. is nice and clear. Although the section is rather long, and could be condensed.  For me, the application results presented in section 4. look like an advertisement for Vsight.  This is ok if the journal (editor) accepts this kind of presentation. Otherwise, it should be rewritten.

Discussion section 5. is very short and could be more thorough. For the future, one could discuss how the more complex working environment impacts on these issues or how – for example – adding humanoid robots – changes things. Conclusion section 6. is short, too. The authors should add discussion on their contributions to theory and practice. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is ok for the most parts of the paper. However, the description of the MHC needs more clear and simple language.

Author Response

% Reviewer 2

Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language
(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
( ) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes    | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable
%Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
%Is the research design appropriate?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )
%Are the methods adequately described?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )
%Are the results clearly presented?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )
%Are the conclusions supported by the results?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )

%Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The paper is probably very valuable for practitioners working in maintenance. However, I am much more concerned about the scientific contribution of the paper.  

Firstly, the introduction should contain the background and research problem and questions – the reason why the authors are writing the paper. The introduction is only about the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC). The description of the model is tangled, and the reader gets lost in the beginning. I suggest writing an introduction about the maintenance, why it is important, and what the authors wish to achieve. MHC could be moved into section 1.2-1.3  – or into a separate section 2.
    R: Thank you for the comment. We revised the first part of the work. Section 1 is an introduction to the problem at hand, personalizing maintenance instructions. Section 2 is an introduction to the MHC, and our framework to develop personalized maintenance instructions.
    
Secondly, the bridge between the MHC and the practical part of the paper seems rather unclear. The MHC theory looks superimposed. I wonder if the authors have found the theory after they did the practical work and tried to justify it with the theory. They should make it much more clear how the theory builds the basis of the rest of the paper.
    R: Thank you for the comment. The MHC is the base of our proposal to develop personalized maintenance instructions. We tried to clarify this in the revised vertion of the paper.
       
As such the maintenance model the authors present in section 3. is nice and clear. Although the section is rather long, and could be condensed.  For me, the application results presented in section 4. look like an advertisement for Vsight.  This is ok if the journal (editor) accepts this kind of presentation. Otherwise, it should be rewritten.
    R: Thank you for the comment. We abridged the section, as suggested.
    
Discussion section 5. is very short and could be more thorough. For the future, one could discuss how the more complex working environment impacts on these issues or how – for example – adding humanoid robots – changes things. Conclusion section 6. is short, too. The authors should add a discussion on their contributions to theory and practice. 
    R: We expanded the work's discussion part. It is now considerably deeper. Thank you for the suggestion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language is ok for the most parts of the paper. However, the description of the MHC needs more clear and simple language.
    R: Thank you for the comment. We abridged the MHC section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. After a thorough review, I have identified numerous shortcomings in your research and the overall concept of the submitted manuscript. I strongly recommend that you undertake a comprehensive and systematic revision before resubmitting it for publication.

Additionally, your manuscript exhibits significant technical issues: the diagrams are illegible, the text in tables overlaps, and various formatting inconsistencies are present. Given these concerns, I urge you to exercise greater caution when preparing your manuscript for submission.

In its current form, I believe the manuscript does not meet the minimum standards required by the journal. Therefore, I am unable to recommend it for further consideration.

Best regards,

Author Response

% Reviewer 3

Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language
( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes    | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
Is the research design appropriate?
( )    (x)    ( )    ( )
Are the methods adequately described?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
Are the results clearly presented?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?
( )    ( )    (x)    ( )
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. After a thorough review, I have identified numerous shortcomings in your research and the overall concept of the submitted manuscript. I strongly recommend that you undertake a comprehensive and systematic revision before resubmitting it for publication.
    R: Thank you for the observation. We restructured the manuscript and is now considerably clear and engaging.
    
Additionally, your manuscript exhibits significant technical issues: the diagrams are illegible, the text in tables overlaps, and various formatting inconsistencies are present. Given these concerns, I urge you to exercise greater caution when preparing your manuscript for submission.
    R: Thank you. We fully revised the work, improved the overall readability, and corrected the typos.

In its current form, I believe the manuscript does not meet the minimum standards required by the journal. Therefore, I am unable to recommend it for further consideration.
    R: Thank you for the comments. Considering all the reviewers' comments, we believe that the work was considerably improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript, "Personalizing Industrial Maintenance Operation using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity", have taken several significant steps to revise their manuscript, and I appreciate the changes the authors have implemented. Despite the significant improvement, I still recommend the following edits:

- Use IMRAD (IMRaD" format refers to a paper that is structured by four main sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. ),

- 3. Use Case - the section needs to be improved so that we can call it Materials and Methods... It is too long and vaguely written. I recommend shortening that section (lines 317-552); the authors need to select information and write only a brief description of the methods used and and the work procedure.

 

I consider the rest of the manuscript to be good and revised to the required level.

Author Response

The authors of the manuscript, "Personalizing Industrial Maintenance Operation using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity", have taken several significant steps to revise their manuscript, and I appreciate the changes the authors have implemented. Despite the significant improvement, I still recommend the following edits:

- Use IMRAD (IMRaD" format refers to a paper that is structured by four main sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.)

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the IMRAD structure often improves the clarity, organization, and readability of scientific works, and is adequate for many subjects. However, its adoption limits flexibility, mainly when presenting qualitative or interdisciplinary studies. Therefore, we consider that the structure adopted is better for our paper, which deviating a little from the classical IMRAD, allows for greater fluency in reading and interpretation of the topics discussed.

- 3. Use Case - the section needs to be improved so that we can call it Materials and Methods... It is too long and vaguely written. I recommend shortening that section (lines 317-552); the authors need to select information and write only a brief description of the methods used and the work procedure.

Reply: Thank you. We tried to simplify a little more this section.

I consider the rest of the manuscript to be good and revised to the required level.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper, which deeply contributed to improving its quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the new version of this paper. The authors have improved the paper and addressed the concerns I presented in my earlier review.   

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review the new version of this paper. The authors have improved the paper and addressed the concerns I presented in my earlier review.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper, which deeply contributed to improving its quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. However, the presented manuscript requires further scientific substantiation. In its current form, the manuscript tends more towards a professional/technical article rather than a scientific one. Please aim to elevate the scientific rigor of your work accordingly. Additionally, it would be beneficial to clearly emphasize the key findings and results of your study in the conclusion, as currently these are not adequately highlighted.

Author Response

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. However, the presented manuscript requires further scientific substantiation. In its current form, the manuscript tends more towards a professional/technical article rather than a scientific one. Please aim to elevate the scientific rigor of your work accordingly. Additionally, it would be beneficial to clearly emphasize the key findings and results of your study in the conclusion, as currently these are not adequately highlighted.

Reply: Thank you for the comments. We tried to clarify the scientific content and emphasize the key findings and results in the conclusion.