Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Meta-Analysis and Forest Plots for Sustainability of Heavy Load Carrier Equipment Used in the Industrial Mining Environment

Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8672; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158672

by Somnath Chattopadhyaya¹

, Brajeshkumar Kishorilal Dinkar², Alok Kumar Mukhopadhyay², Shubham Sharma^3,*

and José Machado^4,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8672; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158672

Submission received: 20 May 2021 / Revised: 11 June 2021 / Accepted: 16 June 2021 / Published: 3 August 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled ‘Meta-analysis and forest plots for heavy load carrier equipment sustainability used in industrial mining environment’ describes the approach for reliability estimation of diesel engines and its components of an industrial heavy load carrier equipment used in mines for transporting ore. Meta-analysis is carried out for field- based small sample data for reliability analysis of different subsystems of the engine. The level of heterogeneity is calculated for each subsystem which is further verified by constructing forest plot.

The work is interesting but several aspects, especially in the mathematical formulas, should be clarified by the authors:

- Line 52 typing errod of ‘of 2000 firings’;

- Line 55 too many spaces;

- In Eq. (5) and (6) is used the symbol ‘es’; is it the same of E.S. introduced in (1)? Please specify it.

- In Eq.(6) seem to compare w and W symbols; it is not clear the difference between uppercase and lowercase, please specify it.

- In Eq.(8) and (9) you use S.E; is it the same of SE? Please specify.

-Please specify better the standard error defined in Eq. (10);

- In (11) is used the SE defined in (10) and es defined at row 142? Please specify it.

- About the results in Table 3, where you show the Level of Heterogeneity i² of all five subsystems of the 3 engines, could you add in Table 3 the calculated value of Q using Eq.(6)?

- About the same Table 3, for all 5 subsystems the downtime hours for the 3 engines are quite close each other; why is it necessary to use the proposed approach for getting the Level of Heterogeneity in stead of a simpler evaluation of the statistical parameters on the 3 engines? Please justify this necessity.

- Line 172, in the text are cited Eq. 15,16,17 and 18, but these eq. does not appear in the paper.

- Figures 2-6 clarify the horizontal axis meaning.

- Table 5: clarify the grouped TBF data shown for each subsystem.

-Conclusion: clarify how the pooled data shown in Table 5 can be used for reliability analysis.

Author Response

11.06.2021

Dear Prof. (Dr.) Editor-in-chief,

Thank you for considering my manuscript titled “Meta-analysis and forest plots for heavy load carrier equipment sustainability used in industrial mining environment”, for the publication in Sustainability (MDPI). I am grateful to you and the reviewers for the valuable suggestions provided. I like to resubmit our revised version of the manuscript by adding response to all your comments. Below please find the answers and actions taken to address these comments. All the suggestions are incorporated and highlighted with the green colour in manuscript. The locations of these changes have been mentioned, where possible, in the action points that respond to each reviewers’ comments. Here are the responses to the reviewer comments:

AUTHOR RESPONSE TO REVIEWER AND EDITOR COMMENTS

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1247832

Paper title: Meta-analysis and forest plots for heavy load carrier equipment sustainability used in industrial mining environment

The manuscript has been thoroughly modified and improved the quality of the content to meet the standards of the Journal. All the suggestions made by the learned referees are included in the revised manuscript. We are extremely thankful to the referees & editor(s) for their constructive comments and appreciation.

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions that have all contributed to improving the manuscript. Once again, the authors are extremely thankful for the observations and the comments of the reviewers. All the comments are appropriately addressed and now the quality of the article has been appreciably enhanced before the consideration for publications. The rebuttal file is enclosed indicating the revisions incorporated in the article as suggested. The revisions are carried out in different font colours in the text of the manuscript for better visibility to the reviewers and as well as to the editor. The red coloured texts are strike out which are proposed to be eliminated and the green colour texts are proposed to be appended as per the valuable recommendations of the reviewers.

Sl.No.	Comments of the Reviewer-1	Relevant revisions incorporated
1.	The work is interesting but several aspects, especially in the mathematical formulas, should be clarified by the authors: - Line 52 typing error of ‘of 2000 firings’; - Line 55 too many spaces;	The authors convey thanks to the reviewer for his comments. The corrections are incorporated in line 52 as suggested. The additional spaces are eliminated as indicated in the line 55.
2.	- In Eq. (5) and (6) is used the symbol ‘es’; is it the same of E.S. introduced in (1)? Please specify it.	Thanks, may be conveyed to the reviewer for his observation. The proper corrections are made in the manuscript as specified.
3.	- In Eq. (6) seem to compare w and W symbols; it is not clear the difference between uppercase and lowercase, please specify it.	The corrections are done are in the manuscript.
4.	- In Eq. (8) and (9) you use S.E; is it the same of SE? Please specify.	The doubts raised by the reviewer are addressed in the text.
5.	-Please specify better the standard error defined in Eq. (10);	The standard error is redefined in a better way as recommended. The specifications of SE are given at appropriate place of the text as indicated.
6.	- In (11) is used the SE defined in (10) and es defined at row 142? Please specify it.	The authors are thankful for the identifications. The intended specification in terms of mathematical equations are specified.
7.	- About the results in Table 3, where you show the Level of Heterogeneity i² of all five subsystems of the 3 engines, could you add in Table 3 the calculated value of Q using Eq. (6)?	The authors wish show gratitude to the reviewer for this observation. The suggested calculated values are provided as indicated.
8.	- About the same Table 3, for all 5 subsystems the downtime hours for the 3 engines are quite close each other; why is it necessary to use the proposed approach for getting the Level of Heterogeneity instead of a simpler evaluation of the statistical parameters on the 3 engines? Please justify this necessity.	The authors wish to convey regards to the reviewer for this remark. The proper justification about the heterogeneity is provided in the text as indicated very appropriately by the reviewer.
9.	- Line 172, in the text are cited Eq. 15,16,17 and 18, but these eq. does not appear in the paper.	The Line -172 has been eliminated as rightly suggested by the reviewer.
10.	- Figures 2-6 clarify the horizontal axis meaning.	The due clarifications are added in the specified place as judiciously suggested by the reviewer.

Thank you very much in advance for taking your time in reviewing this manuscript.

Sincerely, we hope you will find our revision satisfactory.

Thanks, in anticipation.

Regards,

Shubham Sharma

(Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The proposal refers to a practical industrial problem concerning the sustainability of equipment involved in industrial processing.

The authors explain the reasons and the benefits of the research in the introduction chapter.

The “Research methodology” explain how it was developed.

Many data are provided and used in the proposed procedure for exemplification from different point of view.

Paper improvements:

Please clearly define the meta-analysis. I suggest the creation of a “Related works” chapter where is discussed what is the meta-analysis and the methods used. This part should be improved. Please provide explanation of the used formulas. Explain here for each formula what does it concern. The theoretical background should be improved.

In subchapter 3.2.1, Please justify the used formulas if you do not create the Related works chapter. Why are they used? What are their meanings?