Integrated and Networked Systems and Processes—A Perspective for Digital Transformation in Thermal Process Engineering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper under review is the great survey on the topic of chemical plant automation technology, but from my viewpoint it does not contain any results of conducted research in the field. It could serve as a short introduction into the world of modern approaches and devices used to rise the plant's efficiency. However, since the paper's type is "Article" I cannot accept it in present form, due to the lack of a scientific content.
If the author change the type of the paper to "Review" or "Essay", I will suggest to accept it in the present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
as proposed, I have modified the article along the notes of allthree reviewers and would like to submit this again as a "feature" article, which was your proposal. I also included all hints of reviewer 3 and extended the literature.
You find the revised paper attached below.
I hope You can propose the paper now for being accepted. Thanks and best regards,
Michael Maiwald
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The literature review is fine. Concrete examples should be given. The sources of the information being it papers, person communication, etc. should be inserted. A research hypothesis needs to be formulated. The conclusions should relate to the results of the discussion and the research hypothesis. At present the conclusions are rather common sense than derived from the sources and their analysis.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
as proposed, I have modified the article along the notes of all three reviewers and would like to submit this again as a "feature" article, which was the Proposal of reviewer1. In this case, the proposed formulation of a research hypothesis and conclusions, which should relate to experimental results are obsolote in my eyes, if the whole article is declared as "Feature" article.
I also included all hints of reviewer 3 and extended the literature.
You find the revised paper attached below.
I hope You can propose the paper now for being accepted. Thanks and best regards,
Michael Maiwald
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author demonstrated the Integrated and Networked Systems and Processes – A Perspective for Digital Transformation in Thermal Process Engineering. I recommend the following revisions.
In the Figure 1 on page 2, “trolubleshooting” should be “troubleshooting”. In line 53 on page 2, there is “classical PCS operation” while in the Figure 1 it shows “classical PLC operation”, please correct it. It should write in full when the first time it appears in the article: Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). In line 90 on page3, actually even worse that many important processing units (equipment) do not have good dynamic models and only have steady-state models. In line 103 on page 3, the author should also note that high quality of data from proper sensors are most important to validate “Digital Twin”. Both lack of data and lack of good data are bottleneck for good “Digital Twin” in process engineering. In line 150 on page 4, regarding to “a significant number of papers”, please list them as references. In line 228 on page 5, ”and below” should be “below”. In line 291 on page 7, “Consistent application of this concept is still outstanding today”? In line 308-309 on page 7, it is not true that “systems and compatibility of software and data need no longer frighten us.”Author Response
Dear reviewer,
as proposed, I have modified the article along the notes of all three reviewers and would like to submit this again as a "feature" article.
I included all your valuable ploposed Changes/extensions, edited figure 1 and extended the literature.
You find the revised paper attached below.
I hope You can propose the paper now for being accepted. Thanks and best regards,
Michael Maiwald
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Since the author changed the type of the submitted paper to "feature" and introduced corrections according to reviews given, I propose to accept the paper in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank You for accepting the paper as "Feature article" in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a good overview of general directions induced by the availability of sensors, software, control algorithms, I4.0 strategies, etc. and claims a focus on process industry. this focus is represented by a few examples from separation technologies. The actual purpose/research question could be presented in a clearer way. As such the paper remains a bit generic. If the focus was on separation processes, more concrete examples from implementation or potential implementations and (potential) results could be presented and the references used accordingly. If a generic overview of general trends is acceptable for the Journal, it is also fine.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I thank you for the advice and have thereupon carefully searched again for current works in the relevant literature which are representative of my message and take up the trends or even visions mentioned and provide a first assessment of applicability. I only came across a few articles in Germany, which however dealt with very specific separation technology topics. Textbooks on the whole did not deal with trends towards digitalisation. There were also two research initiatives ("Gläserne Kolonne") for which no final results have yet been published.
I have been considering how to bring these results together with the general and somewhat visionary view and in the very end I don't think this is reasonable.
I would ask the editor and the guest editor to decide on this Point.
