Recent Trends, Developments, and Emerging Technologies towards Sustainable Intelligent Machining: A Critical Review, Perspectives and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Minor changes  are required before resubmission of paper for publication

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear

Editor

Sustainability

I am writing to you regarding the resubmission of the manuscript “sustainability-2309088” entitled “Recent Trends, Developments, and Emerging Technologies Towards Sustainable Intelligent Machining; A Critical Review, Perspectives and Future Directions” to Sustainability. I would like to thank you for arranging its reviews. I also appreciate the two reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the paper and providing their comments to improve the quality of the revised manuscript for resubmission. I address the reviewers’ concerns below and have made changes to the manuscript according to all three reviewers’ suggestions. I hope these are satisfactory.

Reviewer 1 Comments.

1. In section 3, the authors used Recurrent Neural Network (NN), but didn’t explain it, for what purpose, it is used and its abbreviation should be RNN instead of NN.

Response:

       The purpose of using recurrent neural network (RNN) has been explained in Section 3 and also the abbreviation is corrected accordingly, also highlighted.  

2. In section 3, the authors mentioned RMS signals, but didn’t explain what kind of these signals, how they generated and how they are maintained?

Response:

RMS signals are explained in Section 3 in detail as per the comment, also highlighted.

3. In section 3, the authors discussed that ILEM is used to estimate RUL, but didn’t explain what is RUL and how ILEM estimate it.

Response:

RUL and ILEM elimination are explained in Section 3 as per the comment, also highlighted.

4. In Section 3, the authors discussed CNC machine is used to gather data from their model
training but didn’t explain what kind of CNC machine and for what purpose, it is used.

Response:

The kind of CNC machine and the purpose is now explained in Section 3 as per the comment, also highlighted.

5. On Page 12, the authors used a mathematical equation without equation number and didn’t explain why it is used in this study.

Response:

The equation is numbered accordingly. The reason of providing mathematical equation is to explain dynamic milling process considering all the variables, which affect milling operation as the cutting mechanism could be well understood, also highlighted.

6. The most advanced references used in this research is 2021 and lowest 2007. Why not consider 2022 and two months of 2023?

Response:

Most recent work have been done in 2022 and 2023 are added as per the comment, also highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear

Editor

Sustainability

I am writing to you regarding the resubmission of the manuscript “sustainability-2309088” entitled “Recent Trends, Developments, and Emerging Technologies Towards Sustainable Intelligent Machining; A Critical Review, Perspectives and Future Directions” to Sustainability. I would like to thank you for arranging its reviews. I also appreciate the two reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the paper and providing their comments to improve the quality of the revised manuscript for resubmission. I address the reviewers’ concerns below and have made changes to the manuscript according to all three reviewers’ suggestions. I hope these are satisfactory.

 

Reviewer 2 Comments.

 

• The size of figures is not same, resize all the figures according to the format. The height and width of all the figures in paper should be same.

 

Response:

All the figures are resized according to the template, also highlighted.

 

• Grammatical and spelling mistakes have been found in the manuscript, review it carefully and correct all the mistakes in revised version.

 

Response:

Grammatical and spelling mistakes have been removed throughout the manuscript, also highlighted.

• In the manuscript, the authors have discussed the contribution of advanced artificial
  intelligent based emerging technologies in intelligent machining and also mentioned the machine leaning techniques which have been adopted for intelligent machining operations. However, there is a need to discuss few latest reviews of advanced machine learning techniques in the paper.

 

Response:

Machine learning related papers are added in the manuscript as per comment, also highlighted.

 

• The manuscript is not in proper format according to the template, it needs to be modified accordingly.

 

Response:

The manuscript has been reformatted in accordance with the template, also highlighted.

 

• The equation on line 361 is based on figure 10; but it should be referenced with figure 9 in line 359, rechecking is needed in revised version. Also assign numbers to equations with relevant references.

 

Response:

Mentioned mistake has been corrected, now the equation is referenced with figure 10 in manuscript. Also equation is numbered, also highlighted.

 

 

 

• It is found on line 352 that the title of figure 10 and figure 9 are same, one of them is not correct, rechecking is needed in revised version.

 

Response:

Mistake has been corrected as per the comment, also highlighted.

 

• No explanation has been provided for online tool condition monitoring system in figure 9. Explain figure 9 in revised version.

 

Response:

Figure 9 has been explained in the manuscript, also highlighted.

 

• The section 3 of the manuscript is lacking research papers of year 2022, author needs to include few more research articles in revised version.

Response:

Most recent work have been done in 2022 and 2023 are added as per the comment, also highlighted.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor, 

The topic of this work is interesting, but the current version has many issues which should be carefully addressed in the revised version. 

The major corrections are as follows:

1-  The abstract section is missing the main information which should be involved in the abstract section. 

2- The authors must be added a section called "protocol of previous work selection" to explain how the authors selected these works in this review.

3-This paper missed the most recent work from 2022 and 2023. For that, the authors must add these works. 

4- Table 1 and Table 2 must review the previous work based on the year of publication (i. e. means sorting). 

5- The authors missed a section of "Future Directions"

6- The conclusion section is too short and must be revised.

Author Response

Dear

Editor

Sustainability

I am writing to you regarding the resubmission of the manuscript “sustainability-2309088” entitled “Recent Trends, Developments, and Emerging Technologies Towards Sustainable Intelligent Machining; A Critical Review, Perspectives and Future Directions” to Sustainability. I would like to thank you for arranging its reviews. I also appreciate the two reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the paper and providing their comments to improve the quality of the revised manuscript for resubmission. I address the reviewers’ concerns below and have made changes to the manuscript according to all three reviewers’ suggestions. I hope these are satisfactory.

 

Reviewer 3 Comments.

 

• The abstract section is missing the main information which should be involved in the abstract section.

 

Response:

      The abstract is modified and missing information has been included as per the comment, and also highlighted.  

 

• The authors must be added a section called "protocol of previous work selection" to explain how the
  authors selected these works in this review.

 

Response:

The reason for conducting this comprehensive has been provided in detail in the last paragraph of the manuscript in introduction section from line 66-74, and also highlighted.

 

• This paper missed the most recent work from 2022 and 2023. For that, the authors must add these

 

Response:

Most recent work have been done in 2022 and 2023 are added as per the comment, also highlighted.

 

• Table 1 and Table 2 must review the previous work based on the year of publication (i. e. means
  sorting).

 

Response:

Table 1 and Table 2 have been sorted as yearly ascending order in the manuscript, also highlighted.

5)   The authors missed a section of "Future Directions" .

Response:

The Future Directions section is included in the manuscript as “Future Perspectives”; modified in manuscript, and also highlighted.  

 

6)    The conclusion section is too short and must be revised.

 

Response:

Conclusion section is revised, and also highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. Thank you for their response no more comments are required from my side.