The Derivation of Defect Priorities and Core Defects through Impact Relationship Analysis between Embedded Software Defects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents very important work of consolidation and classification of embedded software defects, which can have a great impact to reducing or avoiding such defects in the future.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a study that collects embedded software defects from globally.

The paper is well written and structured. It has the sections recommended in the instructions.

With respect the content, the issue developed in the paper is interesting and it fits with the scope of journal.

However, it is possible to accept it . It is neccesary some corrections:
1) There are errors in the numbering of the sections. It is used the same number for differents sections.
2.4.2. Standardization of Terms
2.4.2. Embedded Software Defects via Content Analysis
3.3. DEMATEL Analysis of Expert Opinions
3.3. Validation with Embedded Software Developer Experts
2) The section 3.3. DEMATEL Analysis of Expert Opinions is repeated and it has differente content.

3) It would be neccesary to extend the subsection 3.4. The Difference Between Previous Studies and This Study in order to do a real discussion. The discussión must compare the solution described in the paper with another proposals related with the issue.

4) The section 4. Conclusion should have a paragraph about future work.

5) The references is not used the style of instructions for authors. For example the journals must use bold for year.Please, review the instructions in order to format the references.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the detailed review.

The response to your review comments is uploaded. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, I see this as an interesting study on AN interesting topic. The results can contribute both to academic research and industrial practice. However, some shortcomings should be fixed before publication. These shortcomings are detailed in below (sorry for the brief style of expressing):

 

• Try to simplify the title, the current is unnecessarily complex and hard to read.
• Term “core defect” is used several time. Please explain/define this term.
• Line 54 cites references 4 and 5 but only content of 5 is discussed
• Line 67 what is that “this study” ?
• Lines 110 – 122.Please, add a reference to article explaining the bootstrapping method
• Lines 153 – EQ(4), Please augument with intuitive meaning
• Line 175 What is the exhaustive number?
• Lines 206-207, like in other case provide some description of the experts
• Table 5: is that “N/A needed”?
• Line 115 and Figure 2, explain what is “reliability table”
• Table 7 The subheadings under “Survey Analysis Results of Cronbach’s alpha” are not understandable
• Line 246 “minimum” => “maximum” ?
• Related to table 11, the intuitive meaning of “D+R” and “D-R” explained only at the end of paper. Explaining it earlier would make the paper easier to read.
• Line 262 same title as on line 242.Number 3.3 comes also third time on line 311
• Lines 273-274 explain how the “findings suggest that…”
• Lines 282-283, where was the classification done?
• Lines 283-305, this paragraph is a core result, but it is unclear how these results are driven from the study. Please, better description about that. THIS MIGHT BE MY MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the detailed review.

The response to your review comments is uploaded. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be published in present form