Exploring Applications and Practical Examples by Streamlining Material Requirements Planning (MRP) with Python

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Exploring Applications and Practical Examples by Streamlining 2 Material Requirements Planning (MRP) with Python

 

1.     This article explores Python's role in automating Material Requirements Planning (MRP) tasks, bridging the gap between AI and MRP for more efficient supply chain management.

2.     The abstract should have a summary of the problem, outcome and method. This abstract is a little hazzy to understand where we came from and what we are trying to explore.  

3.     The introduction talks about the gap without providing enough background of previous studies and practices. How is it possible?

4.     How are those gaps found? No clue.

5.     From the beginning, the authors wanted to establish whether Python will solve such and such problems. Did not find enough explanation of what is happening wrong with other applications currently operating or executing MRP and other things.

6.     Section 2.2 discusses integration which is a good idea. Every transformation is happening from a point. Without that point, we can not think about the future. This is missing here in this article.

7.     This paper has many good things like PRISMA analyses, result outcomes, figures (design), and the like. This paper needs proper synchronization and resubmitting would be worthwhile.

8.     Two or three instances would be better to understand why Python and other technological integrations can give better results.  

9.     Figure 2 has some additional blurry input; are these a part of the figure? Or remain this while cropped?

10.  Fig 4 did not explain well.

11.  Is Figure 5 designed or extended by the authors? If so, what basis did they create it? Any experiment? Success or failure instances?

12.  Implications should be connected with the concern procedures like which industries are suitable for this. Or how? Why? Timing as well?

13.  This paper uses several secondary literature to find future trajectories which is suitable for future or contemporary research. Somehow, this paper did not mention much of contemporary literature-based research. It is a missing part here. It is recommended to include additional research from the period spanning 2023 to 2020 to ensure a comprehensive understanding of recent developments.

14.  Conclusions are enough to understand contributions but are not well connected with the above-written text flow.  

 

15.  Grammatical errors exist and need to be taken care of before publishing finally.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammatical errors exist and need to be taken care of before publishing finally.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find attached a Word document containing our response to your review along with the other reviewer's comments for enhanced transparency. We dedicated significant efforts towards revising the article, approaching the task with a high degree of commitment. Should you identify any aspect of the revision that appears to be insufficient, we encourage you to bring it to our attention. We are fully committed to addressing any identified shortcomings in the article through further revisions. We extend our gratitude for your valuable time and contributions to this endeavor.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores the possibilities of using Python to code MRP systems. The authors claim that the Python environment can foster the automation capabilities of MRP. Although this work could be of interest, I am really concerned about its contribution to the literature, since there are other works related to MRP coding by Python.

In my opinion, the only innovative point of the work could be to further study the integration of MRP-Python code into existing ERP systems. However, the integration is not addressed but proposed as future research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find attached a Word document containing our response to your review along with the other reviewer's comments for enhanced transparency. We dedicated significant efforts towards revising the article, approaching the task with a high degree of commitment. Should you identify any aspect of the revision that appears to be insufficient, we encourage you to bring it to our attention. We are fully committed to addressing any identified shortcomings in the article through further revisions. We extend our gratitude for your valuable time and contributions to this endeavor.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract should describe the relevance of the study, methodology, outcome and implications. Please prepare properly.

In the text, there are quit big texts without citations. Please, prove your statements with relevant works. It is academic paper!

It is not serious to define the gap based on the couple of articles only. It needs more comprehensive research. So please, adjust the introduction section.

Besides, in the introduction, usually, we write the relevance of the study, problem description, the gap in this area and the objective of the research. While the methodology should be the independent paragraph.

The choice of the research methods should be justified by the citations. The description should be detailed. For the example please see the following paper (https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127383 )

 

Please, connect the results to the previously published literature. Compare your outputs to the results of already existing literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find attached a Word document containing our response to your review along with the other reviewer's comments for enhanced transparency. We dedicated significant efforts towards revising the article, approaching the task with a high degree of commitment. Should you identify any aspect of the revision that appears to be insufficient, we encourage you to bring it to our attention. We are fully committed to addressing any identified shortcomings in the article through further revisions. We extend our gratitude for your valuable time and contributions to this endeavor.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments and suggestions. In my opinion, the paper has been drastically improved and can be published in its current form.