Aggregation of Risk Management and Non-Parametric Models to Rank Failure Modes of Radio Frequency Identification Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript provides an in-depth analysis of an innovative approach that combines risk management principles with non-parametric models to address the challenges associated with ranking failure modes within Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems. The study is meticulously structured, highlighting the deficiencies present in traditional risk assessment methodologies, particularly within the context of RFID systems—an integral aspect of Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things (IoT).

 

Hoveeverr, here are some questins and suggestion to improve the paper:

·         What are the main criticisms and shortcomings of traditional FMCEA that this research aimed to address?

·         How does the enhanced FMCEA method resolve or minimize these shortcomings?

·         How generalizable and applicable are the results of this research to a broader range of industrial processes or equipment?

·         Is the applied methodology adaptable to different types of industrial systems or limited to specific technologies like RFID?

·         Could you elaborate on the criteria or considerations in forming the FMEA team (Step 1.1) and the importance of the number of experts (T) involved in the study?

·         How was the detailed study of the system, process, or product conducted (Step 1.2), and what were the key elements analyzed?

·         Regarding the identification of Failure Modes (FMs) and their causes and effects (Step 1.3), how were these factors categorized and organized within the process?

·         Can you explain the reasoning behind setting the rating scale for each risk factor (Step 1.4), and how were these scales determined or standardized?

·         In Step 1.5, could you provide more insight into the structure of the FMEA tableau or sheet, especially regarding the risk factors' ratings, expenses, and time necessary for fixing each cause of failure?

·         How was the data collected from the FMEA tables filled by the experts (Step 1.6), and what measures were taken to ensure consistency among the experts' assessments?

·         Regarding the assignment of weights to experts (Step 1.7), what considerations or criteria were used to determine these weights, reflecting the diversity of their backgrounds and experiences?

·         In Step 1.8, can you explain the process of aggregating the assessments and constructing the judgment matrix? How were the aggregated rates calculated for each Sub-Failure Mode?

·         How were the Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) computed for each Sub-Failure Mode (Step 1.9), and what was the rationale behind this calculation method?

·         Regarding the DEA approach and model selection (Stage 2), what were the specific reasons for choosing certain factors as inputs and outputs in the DEA models?

·         Can you provide more details on how the CCR-input oriented model was applied in the study, particularly in relation to the assumed constant return to scale and its relevance to the problem at hand?

·         How were the efficiencies computed for each failure mode using the FMEA-DEA model (Step 2.1), and how did these efficiencies influence the subsequent ranking process?

·         Could you elaborate on the criteria or mechanisms used to assign final ranks to Failure Modes (Step 2.4) and the significance of integrating the FMEA-DEA approach in generating the final report?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report of article applsci-2753156

 

In brief, the paper titled “Aggregation Of Risk Management and Non-Parametric Models to Rank Failure Modes of Radio Frequency Identification Systems”

 

(a) is an exciting work, providing interesting novelties for the lift industry

(b) combines two well-known methodologies(FMCEA and DEA) for assessing risks

(c) applies the selected methodological approaches solidly;

(d) fits the journal’s scope and standards.

 

General findings related to the manuscript

The manuscript contains novelties and new aspects related to risk assessment. The rest of the reviewer’s comments focus on the possibility of more significant impacts on the research community. However, there will also be some essential stuctural comments. Although the manuscript has potential, it has some weak points in its present form.

 

The detailed comments are presented in the following:

 

Section 1 - Introducion

 

1a.

There is not enough information why FMEA’s RPN is selected for the risk assessment process. The selection was only stated without a clear overview of the possible methodological options. Let the reviewer mention the Partial Risk Map (PRISM) and Action Priority (AP) calculation of FMEA, which are improved calculational methods for RPN and widely used in the industry. Please process and place the sources below in the text, and please clearly identify the motivation of focusing on RPN.

ref1: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/5/676

ref2: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103712

1b.

The introduction part is confusingly long. It would be worthwhile to separate the section presenting FMEA and DEA applications from this section and create a literature review chapter in the text.

1c.

Appendix A should be completed with another FMEA problem called “hidden risk” and identified by ref1.

 

Section 3 - Results

2a.

Some parts of the Results section and the (currently non-existent) "Case study" section are not separated in the manuscript, which is confusing. Please separate the parts of chapter 3.1 that belong to the presentation of the features of the RFID case study and include them in a separate "Case study" section. Please, after the presentation of the case study, the work should focus on the presentation of the results. This is just a simple restructuring problem, it can be easily solved.

2b.

Since the risk assessment process is based on subjective weighting and it is absolutely qualitative, please provide more detailed information of the five risk assessors.

 

Section 4 - Discussion

3a.

The discussion section does not create linkages between the manuscript and other relevant works related to the risk assessment approaches or the literature of RFID-related risk assessment methods or processes. This is a huge weak point, since in this current phase, the manuscript stands alone with its results. Please create linkages between the manuscript and the existing literature, and highlight your results from the perspective of the literature.

3b.

An additional comment: please summarize briefly the limitations of the study.

 

In general:

 

The manuscript has significant potential, but in its present form, the manuscript has some major weaknesses. The reviewer suggests major changes before publication based on the previously written.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised according to the requirements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper has been improved.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Second review report of article applsci-2753156

 

The reviewer is pleased to note that the paper improved significantly, and the comments were addressed by the author well. Based on significant changes in the text, the overall scientific merit of the paper developed. The most important is that the key problems are solved well. In general, the reviewer appreciates the efforts of the author in reworking the paper.

 

Overall proposal:

 

The reviewer suggests publishing the paper in its present form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors claimed that this paper “sheds light on multiple criteria that affect the efficiency of the RFID system’s components and its function”. They used a risk management method to analyze the failures related to both hardware and software parts. A modified Failure Modes Causes and Effects Analysis (FMCEA) method is developed that considers each cause of a failure as a sub-failure mode. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to evaluate the efficiency of these failures by involving their fixing time and cost.

 

While I agree that this paper developed some practical ideas and methods, I have some major concerns on the current manuscript.

 

 1. The paper organization is hard to follow. There are too many very short paragraphs (many paragraphs only contain 1 or 2 sentences.)  This is not professional for a journal article.

 

2. The motivation is not very clear to me. For example, the authors stated “Thereon, detecting and assessing ‘’ EFFICIENTLY ‘’ the failures of the RFID system, then suggesting adequate solutions and prevent them before they occur is of a big interest.” This is too broad and hard to understand.

 

3. The literature review (Section 2) is awful. It’s not clear what are the logics behand the current organization. Most importantly, it does not summarize the limitation/challenges of existing research, and why they should propose the new approach.

 

4. The methodology section needs significant improvement. It spent lots of efforts to introduce existing approaches (such as FMEA and DEA). Where are the new “modified Failure Modes Causes and Effects Analysis (FMCEA)” as claimed by authors? The proposed new approach should be emphasized and discussed.

 

5. There are many large and long tables without good interpretations, making the paper read more like a report. I recommend the authors focus more on methodological novelty description, discussion and justification.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper writing also needs significant improvement. Extensive English editing is suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic adressed by the paper is interesting, which is why I accepted to make a review for free. However, I am sorry to say that the presentation quality is, by far, too low for submitting it to a scientific journal.

The quality of the presentation must be improved before going any further. The abstract we sense that there is a problem (underlines, and two different fonts). The abstract has no clear conclusion. Some formulas don't display well. Several images are not readable and too cluttered.

As for the content, you should try to reach some clear conclusions: I do not understand well which new knowledge is created in the paper.

I would suggest you to read one of these books about scientific writing, in order to see the level  of writing clarity that is required for a scientific communication :

Lindsay, D., 2020. Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words, 2e édition. ed. CSIRO PUBLISHING. Zaumanis, D.M., 2021. Write an impactful research paper: A scientific writing technique that will shape your academic career. Independently published, Las Vegas. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english quality is grammatically okay, however the overall presentation must be improved and made much more concise.  You should aim at first reducing your manuscript size to 1/2 to 1/4 of its current size which will help you go more to the point, then probably deepen some conclusions, and then we can start talking about science.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discussed the aggregation of risk management and non-parametric models to rank failure modes of radio frequency identification systems. The method creation is well presented. Before the paper is accepted, I suggest making some revisions and refinements.

Some issues that need to be revised or supplemented are as follows.

1. The English expression in the manuscript is too colloquial and not standardized enough. Further improvement is needed.

2. Introduction: The expression of a sentence as a paragraph seems inappropriate. The author needs to further summarize and summarize.

3. Literature Review: The relationship between the literature is not elaborated, and the connection between each paragraph is not close.

4. Conclusion: The conclusions are not concise enough and need to be further refined.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression in the manuscript is too colloquial and not standardized enough. Further improvement is needed.