An Additional Model to Control Risk in Mastering Defense Technology in Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study "Additional Models of Technology Readiness Level in Supporting 2
Defense Technology Mastery in Indonesia" is well structured but it requires moderate english editing to improve its readability. Furthermore, understanding of the implication of this study to other areas or other countries is unknown. Authors must incorporate these aspects. Finally, several technical flaws and missing discussions are elaborated below. Please respond to them one by one. Lastly, there are 370 words or 5% of the manuscript coming from 1 source, journal.trunojoyo.ac.id. Because of this, in total, the similarity index shown by trunitin 20% of the manuscript. Please extend the manuscript to lower this similarity (especially the conclusion part):
Line 2, 3 : Font type is wrong. Please refer to the template.
Line 8, 9: Too concise, sentences are monotonous. Please reprhase and elaborate further. Give enough background from a bigger perspective. Present problems and urgency of the topic.
Line 67 - 70: Grammatical error. A future tense should not be used for research problem statement. Please revise
Section 3.2. It would be helpful if pictures of the guns are included for better visual understanding.
Conclusion section is too concise. Please start by summarizing what the study has done, follow by summary of the results, limitations of the study, implication to a greater context (e.g. for other regions/countries), and future works.
Author Response
The authors reply is in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript, but I have some comments:
- please rewrite the abstract. It is the "face" of your paper. Please make it stronger and more reasoned.
In the Introduction part, please argue why you are choosing this topic and the big/main problem. Why is it so important, etc.?
- The Journal of Sustainability is not a technological journal; that's why here is needed to do a Literature review.
- who are the authors of the 1 table? Don't you think that it is too big and should be replaced in the Annex? Why did you present it? The purpose is...
- 2.4 section - lines 195 - 201 - they are not needed, you have talked about this already.
- where is the methodology part?
- about what is your case study?
Sorry, but I don't understand the main goal of your paper and what do you want to present, what is the final result and you got it.
Author Response
The authors reply is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The quality has improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your revision.
