The Role of the Quality Management Process within Society 5.0
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors used a systematic review. I find the data in the paper overwhelming - I propose that they rather give their contribution and then discuss from the data per item where was it highligted and give all the references in the appendixes with the data.
I miss the so what - for a research paper we need what are we going to do with the contribution.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time and suggestions. We have thoroughly addressed the comments and improved our paper.
Comment/suggestion 1: The authors used a systematic review. I find the data in the paper overwhelming - I propose that they rather give their contribution and then discuss from the data per item where was it highligted and give all the references in the appendixes with the data.
Answer 1: Thank you for noting this. We have restructured the paper so it is not that overwhelming.
Comment/suggestion 2: I miss the so what - for a research paper we need what are we going to do with the contribution.
Answer 2: The implications and potential practical outcomes of the paper’s contribution are now discussed in detail.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The Title maybe modified as "Review on the role of the quality management process within Society 5.0"
2. The main concepts of the study are missing and are to be added
3. How the theoretical model was proposed and explain the model properly
4. Justify that hoe industry 5.0 is interpreted with the Industry 4.0
5. The conclusion could be in a consistent level
6. The limitations of the research are to be added
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your valuable insights that helped us improve our paper. We addressed the comments and suggestions as follows:
Comment/suggestion 1: The Title maybe modified as "Review on the role of the quality management process within Society 5.0"
Answer 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have modified the title.
Comment/suggestion 2: The main concepts of the study are missing and are to be added
Answer 2: We added the main concepts of the study. Lines 92-147
Comment/suggestion 3: How the theoretical model was proposed and explain the model properly
Answer 1: The model was developed in accordance with the literature review. We have expanded this section with explanations. Lines 341-384
Comment/suggestion 4: Justify that hoe industry 5.0 is interpreted with the Industry 4.0
Answer 1: The paper is expanded on how Industry 5.0 derives from Industry 5.0 and the relation and implications of this. Lines 149-187
Comment/suggestion 5: The conclusion could be in a consistent level
Answer 1: The conclusion is modified and revised.
Comment/suggestion 6: The limitations of the research are to be added
Answer 1: We have highlighted the potential limitations and provided insight on what should future studies take into consideration to avoid these limitations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper identifies a gap in existing literature regarding the integration of quality management processes in Society 5.0. What specific aspects of quality management in Society 5.0 have been under-researched, and how does this study aim to address these gaps?
Lines 38-46: The introduction outlines the objectives of the study. Could the authors provide more detail on the scope of the study, particularly how it aims to bridge theoretical concepts with practical applications in various industries?
The introduction outlines the objectives of the study. Could the authors provide more detail on the scope of the study, particularly how it aims to bridge theoretical concepts with practical applications in various industries?
Figure 1: The figure shows the number of studies excluded at each stage. Could you provide more detailed reasons for these exclusions? For example, what were the common reasons for exclusion during the screening and eligibility phases?
148-150: In the second phase, the screening methodology was described, which involved the 148 elimination of duplicated articles and the exclusion of unreadable, corrupted files. This 149 screening was performed manually by the authors on their computers, with data backups 150 on various cloud services and internal backup systems.
Why in Table 1 you don’t put the studies from 2023?
Figure 2, your cluster is not clear, give the label of each cluster is preferred.
Discussion:
How effectively does the excerpt address the integration of quality management processes, particularly Quality 5.0, with the principles and goals of Society 5.0, including social responsibility and environmental sustainability?
Does the excerpt sufficiently evaluate the evolution of quality management frameworks, such as ISO 45001, in promoting occupational health and safety within the context of Society 5.0, while considering the broader societal implications beyond mere compliance and risk management?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your time and highly valuable suggestions. We have thoroughly addressed the comments and improved the paper as follows:
Comment/suggestion 1: The paper identifies a gap in existing literature regarding the integration of quality management processes in Society 5.0. What specific aspects of quality management in Society 5.0 have been under-researched, and how does this study aim to address these gaps?
Answer 1: Thank you for noting this. We have further elaborated this. Lines 80-122
Comment/suggestion 2: Lines 38-46: The introduction outlines the objectives of the study. Could the authors provide more detail on the scope of the study, particularly how it aims to bridge theoretical concepts with practical applications in various industries?
Answer 2: Additional details were added. Lines 131-169
Comment/suggestion 3: Figure 1: The figure shows the number of studies excluded at each stage. Could you provide more detailed reasons for these exclusions? For example, what were the common reasons for exclusion during the screening and eligibility phases?
148-150: In the second phase, the screening methodology was described, which involved the 148 elimination of duplicated articles and the exclusion of unreadable, corrupted files. This 149 screening was performed manually by the authors on their computers, with data backups 150 on various cloud services and internal backup systems.
Answer 3: The reasons and eligibility criteria are now provided in more detail. Lines 334-358
Comment/suggestion 4: Why in Table 1 you don’t put the studies from 2023?
Answer 4: Studies from 2023 are now added.
Comment/suggestion 5: Figure 2, your cluster is not clear, give the label of each cluster is preferred.
Answer 5: In accordance with the other reviewer’s suggestion, we have moved Figure 2 to the appendix (Figure A1). The clusters are now labeled. However individual labels are not added as they would clutter the figure. Instead, the labels are presented in Table 1.
Comment/suggestion 6: How effectively does the excerpt address the integration of quality management processes, particularly Quality 5.0, with the principles and goals of Society 5.0, including social responsibility and environmental sustainability?
Answer 6: The excerpt from the research paper effectively addresses the integration of quality management processes, particularly Quality 5.0, with the principles and goals of Society 5.0. It highlights how Quality 5.0 extends beyond traditional quality standards to encompass social responsibility, environmental sustainability, and stakeholder engagement. This broader perspective reflects the core values of Society 5.0, which focuses on balancing technological advancements with human-centric values and societal needs. We have expanded the Discussion section. Lines 513-528.
Comment/suggestion 7: Does the excerpt sufficiently evaluate the evolution of quality management frameworks, such as ISO 45001, in promoting occupational health and safety within the context of Society 5.0, while considering the broader societal implications beyond mere compliance and risk management?
Answer 7: The excerpt provides a thorough evaluation of the evolution of quality management frameworks, including ISO 45001, in promoting occupational health and safety within the context of Society 5.0. It highlights how ISO 45001, which succeeded OHSAS 18001, advances the principles of occupational health and safety management by emphasizing worker participation and placing greater responsibility on top management. This aligns with the inclusive and participatory values of Society 5.0.
The Discussion has been expanded. Lines 529-539
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNone
