Integrated Estimation of a Cyber-Physical System’s Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with a topic of interest for the journal by addressing the sustainability of cyber-physical systems (CPS) in the current context of Industry 4.0.

The research aims to propose a methodology for estimating the sustainability of a CPS by using several methodologies.

The article can be improved to ensure greater readability and thus provide a clear contribution for further research.

Below I list a set of suggestions:

• Check the usage of the acronym CPS, which is not used throughout all the paper.
• Integrate further references to present and explain the context of Industry 4.0. and the topic of sustainability. Suggestions from the journal are as follows: 1) Kluczek, A.; Żegleń, P.; Matušíková, D. The Use of Prospect Theory for Energy Sustainable Industry 4.0. Energies 2021, 14, 7694. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227694   2) Rehman, A.; Saba, T.; Haseeb, K.; Larabi Marie-Sainte, S.; Lloret, J. Energy-Efficient IoT e-Health Using Artificial Intelligence Model with Homomorphic Secret Sharing. Energies 2021, 14, 6414. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196414
• Carefully revise your keywords. Is development the right one for this kind of paper?
• The introduction should also present the general structure of the paper.
• More information should be included on the methodology used, which is briefly described in paragraph 2 in the sentence: “ the methods of information collection, document analysis, expert estimation, generalization, grouping, and brainstorming have been used”.
• The author refers to “domestic” and “foreign work”, but I am not sure which is domestic for the Author. I guess it is Russian. It would be useful to specify it better.
• The set of indicators proposed in 3.2.2 could be better discussed and included in a table.
• Connections between the paragraph should be strengthened. A suggestion could be to include a few introductory lines for paragraph 3. Results, describing the structure of presentation of the results

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thanks for the comments. This allowed us to improve the article.

Check the usage of the acronym CPS, which is not used throughout all the paper.

The term «cyber-physical system» has been changed to the abbreviation «CPS» except plurals and in titles of other works.

• Integrate further references to present and explain the context of Industry 4.0. and the topic of sustainability. Suggestions from the journal are as follows: 1) Kluczek, A.; Żegleń, P.; Matušíková, D. The Use of Prospect Theory for Energy Sustainable Industry 4.0. Energies 2021, 14, 7694. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227694   2) Rehman, A.; Saba, T.; Haseeb, K.; Larabi Marie-Sainte, S.; Lloret, J. Energy-Efficient IoT e-Health Using Artificial Intelligence Model with Homomorphic Secret Sharing. Energies 2021, 14, 6414. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196414

References to these two sources have been added to the list of references, and paragraph 4 has been supplemented with scientific discussion based on the results of these studies.

 

• Carefully revise your keywords. Is development the right one for this kind of paper?

«Development» has been excluded from the keywords; the new one, «effectiveness», has been added.

 

• The introduction should also present the general structure of the paper.

The general structure of the paper has been added into the Introduction.

 

• More information should be included on the methodology used, which is briefly described in paragraph 2 in the sentence: “ the methods of information collection, document analysis, expert estimation, generalization, grouping, and brainstorming have been used”.

The paragraph «Materials and Methods» has been expanded.

 

• The author refers to “domestic” and “foreign work”, but I am not sure which is domestic for the Author. I guess it is Russian. It would be useful to specify it better.

In the sentence «In modern domestic and foreign scientific and specialized literature, much attention is paid to …» (line 73) the words «domestic and foreign», and «Analysis of the domestic and foreign works on the topic under consideration…» (line 176), and «works of domestic and foreign authors…» (line 128) were excluded.

 

• The set of indicators proposed in 3.2.2 could be better discussed and included in a table.

The table 1 has been worked out and the paragraph «Discussion» has been added.

 

• Connections between the paragraph should be strengthened. A suggestion could be to include a few introductory lines for paragraph 3. Results, describing the structure of presentation of the results

A few introductory lines for paragraph 3 have been added.

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction of article is poor and not able to follow the authors intension.

The second section methodology is less and not able to understand its concept and how the proposed method is implementing.

Bunch of references were added for a single sentence in line number 128, this should be avoided. maximum of two references can be cited for each sentence.  Same at line number 154, 174, 175  as well. any many other places as well.

 

Discussion about result is very limited this is not confirming the excellence of the proposed concept.

 

It is suggested to present any sort of charts and waveforms to show the outcome of the work. 

 

Novelty and contributions of the work are yet to define in detail. 

Author Response

Dear Editor

Thanks for the comments. This allowed us to improve the article. We have highlighted areas of the text with color for clarity. Looking forward to hearing good news from you.

• The introduction of article is poor and not able to follow the authors intension.

The Introduction has been improved.

 

• The second section methodology is less and not able to understand its concept and how the proposed method is implementing.

The paragraph «Materials and Methods» has been expanded.

 

• Bunch of references were added for a single sentence in line number 128, this should be avoided. maximum of two references can be cited for each sentence.  Same at line number 154, 174, 175  as well. any many other places as well.

These are corrected.

 

• Discussion about result is very limited this is not confirming the excellence of the proposed concept.

The paragraph «Discussion» has been expanded.

 

• It is suggested to present any sort of charts and waveforms to show the outcome of the work. 

The table 1 has been worked out in paragraph 3.

 

• Novelty and contributions of the work are yet to define in detail. 

The scientific novelty and contribution of the work have been supplemented in paragraphs "Discussion" and "Conclusion".

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have revised carefully their manuscript, which is significantly improved with respect to the previous version. 

The only notes are as follows: 

The article includes 17  "etc", are you sure you cannot eliminate and revise some of these, using for instance "such as" before the list, or "e.g" or elaborating more on those parts? 

In particular, for the references that you have correctly cut with respect to the initial long list, you could include [e.g.] before, instead of etc. at the end.

Check the explanation on this specific matter here: https://blog.apastyle.org/files/apa-latin-abbreviations-table-2.pdf

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your work and advice. This all allowed us to make the article is better.

We worked through each position and rewrote the sentences with "". Literature sources have also been added.
All changes are made in color.
Thank you for working with our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have answered for comments, I dont have any other comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for your work and advice. This all allowed us to make the article be better.