Updating a Quality Management System for a Mexican Industrial Organization: Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

It is a very important and useful topic.

I recommend the followings to improve the quality of your paper.

You mentioned that “…new activities were added to the processes and others were modified...”. More explanation and details are needed about the previous and the present processes to provide an insight into the changes and to make more understandable the needed changes.

The importance of the case study lies in the fact that we can use it as good practice and as a comparison.

Therefore, I recommend to add a short section after the literature review which clearly introduce the differences between the former and the recent processes.

To better understand the situation, it would be important to know in more detail what justified the change. It is not enough to justify it because of the increase in efficiency. More information on the validation of new processes would also be interesting.

The conclusion section is also very general so it should be more specific for the analysed situation.

I am not an expert but I think the quality of the English also needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article titled "Updating a Mexican Industrial Organization Quality Management System: Case Study" is interesting. However, the chosen SWOT method as the only one to justify the results is questionable. The article is based on the latest scientific sources, the structure meets the requirements for a scientific article. Combining the discussion and results sections begs the question, where is the discussion, since the section is mostly about results. It also does not include any statistical confidence calculation that could justify the accuracy of the results. The presented conclusions are very abstract and do not include final results. It is necessary to supplement and strengthen the article in the previously mentioned aspects.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for submitting your manuscript. Below you can find some observations for improving your paper.

Generally, the English should be revised, some formulations are not very clear.

1.      Introduction

-        The last 2 paragraphs – I would move these in the section 3.

-        I would add at the end of the Introduction the scope and aim of the research. What is intended by this study, because it is not clear?

2. Literature review

This section should be renamed, this is not a real literature review, this is just a section including some theoretical aspects and other studies dealing with the subject.

You may also include a short critical analysis of the studies presented, not only their topic.

3.      Methods

Which are the hypotheses formulated for the case study?

Who and when performed the case study? The authors?

Before explaining the methodological steps in detail, I would recommend to make a summary of them.

Paragraph 181-185 is not clear.

4.      Results and Discussions

How was the evaluation instrument elaborated? Could you please provide more details? And how was the evaluation performed?

Table 5 should be improved – Text in column 3 is not clear where belongs to.

4.5. How were these markers established?

5.      Conclusiosn

The first 2 paragraphs refers to the implementation of a QMS, but the study presented is about updating an existing QMS system. Please revise and add relevant information related to this topic also.

This section should be significantly improved. Which are the conclusions of the study performed? Which is the utility of the study? Ae these conclusions in line with other studies or in contradiction? Which are the limitations of the study?

Overall, this paper has many flaws in the way the data is presented. The theoretical part could be improved. The research methodology is not well explained. The conclusions formulated are not appropriate for the study.

In this form, the paper can not be accepted for publishing. Please revise the entire paper before resubmitting.

Best regards,

Generally, the English should be revised, some formulations are not very clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections were made correctly. No additional comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for considering the observations and improving the manuscript.

Small language corrections are needed.