Cell formation and layout design using genetic algorithm and TOPSIS: A case study of Hydraulic Industries State Company

Dhulfiqar Hakeem Dhayef; Sawsan S. A. Al-Zubaidi; Luma A. H. Al-Kindi; Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296133

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 21, 2023
8 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Ta-Chung Chu, Editor PONE-D-23-26796Cell Formation and Layout Design using Genetic Algorithm and TOPSIS: A Case Study of Hydraulic Industries State CompanyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dhayef, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Reviewers have commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you make some major revisions of your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ta-Chung Chu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper used GA and multiple criteria decision-making method (TOPSIS) to investigate the design of CMS from CF and machine cell layout. I have some comments as follows: 1. The abstract should be rewritten. The weights of factors are 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.9. The authors should introduce that how they were obtained. 2. Introduction should be written. The background, motivation, and innovation of the research question in this article should be introduced in detail. 3. The image of fitness value and iteration number should be provided to demonstrate the convergence of the algorithm. 4. The layout of some formulas should be corrected. For example, Eq. (7) and Eq. (8). 5. The number of digits retained after the decimal point should be uniform. For example, Table 7 and Table 8. 6. Insufficient research in the article and prospects for future work should be provided in Conclusion. 7. The layout of current version should be improved. Reviewer #2: I am writing in response to the manuscript I was requested to review. Overall, the content is compelling and of good quality, however, upon careful examination, I have identified certain areas that require further clarification. One of my primary concerns pertains to the use of the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) over other Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques. I would appreciate it if the author could elucidate on the rationale behind selecting TOPSIS, and why it was deemed more suitable for this study compared to other MCDM methodologies. Moving on to Table 12, I noticed that part 6 is processed in 14, which then necessitates a move to a different cell. I would urge the author to propose a solution or an alternative approach to mitigate this issue of moving a part to another cell for another processing. Upon reviewing the results, I found a striking resemblance to the outcomes presented in the C and R study [34]. In order to maintain the unique contribution of this paper, I recommend the author provide a comprehensive explanation detailing how their method diverges from the one in that study [34]. Every research method has its inherent limitations. To present a balanced view and enhance the credibility of the study, could the author shed some light on the limitations of their chosen method? Finally, in the interest of demonstrating the potential applicability and the future scope of their method, I would suggest the author discuss the possible future directions. How could this method be further extended or improved upon? What are the potential advancements or applications that could stem from this research? Thank you for considering my recommendations. I believe addressing these points will greatly enhance the depth and clarity of the manuscript, ultimately contributing to its overall robustness. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296133.r001
Revision 1
26 Nov 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1.The abstract should be rewritten. The weights of factors are 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.9. The authors should introduce that how they were obtained. Rep: Thank you for pointing this out. we explicitly introduce how these weights were obtained "A GA is employed to identify machine cells and part families based on Grouping Efficiency (GE) as a fitness function. In contrast to previous research, which considered grouping efficiency with a weight factor (q = 0.5), this study utilizes various weight factor values (0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 0.5, and 0.9)." 2. Introduction should be written. The background, motivation, and innovation of the research question in this article should be introduced in detail. Rep: We acknowledge the suggestion to enhance the Introduction section. In the revised manuscript, we provided a more detailed presentation of the background, motivation, and innovation related to the research question addressed in this study. 3. The image of fitness value and iteration number should be provided to demonstrate the convergence of the algorithm. Rep: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we included an image illustrating the convergence of the algorithm by depicting the fitness value against the generation number. "Fig 6. Fitness function curve at weight factor 0.3." 4. The layout of some formulas should be corrected. For example, Eq. (7) and Eq. (8). Rep: We appreciate your attention to detail. We reviewed and corrected the layout of the formulas in the revised manuscript. 5. The number of digits retained after the decimal point should be uniform. For example, Table 7 and Table 8. Rep: In the revised manuscript, we ensured uniformity in the number of digits retained after the decimal point. 6. Insufficient research in the article and prospects for future work should be provided in Conclusion. Rep: We appreciate the feedback and acknowledge the need for additional research insights and prospects for future work in the Conclusion section. we incorporated a more comprehensive discussion to address this concern. “This approach can be applied to a wider range of CMS design issues, including but not limited to reliability, group scheduling, production planning, and alternative layouts (such as U-shaped, double-row, or others). Moreover, future research can focus on integrating environmental considerations into the design and optimization of cellular manufacturing systems. This can involve incorporating criteria related to energy consumption, waste reduction, and carbon footprint in the decision-making process, contributing to the development of environmentally conscious manufacturing practices.” 7. The layout of current version should be improved. Rep: Thank you for your feedback. We carefully reviewed and implemented enhancements to ensure a better presentation. If you have any specific areas of concern or additional recommendations, please share them with us. Reviewer #2: 1.One of my primary concerns pertains to the use of the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) over other Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques. I would appreciate it if the author could elucidate on the rationale behind selecting TOPSIS, and why it was deemed more suitable for this study compared to other MCDM methodologies. Rep: Thank you for your insightful comments and concerns regarding the choice of the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) in our study. We appreciate your attention to this aspect and would like to provide a comprehensive explanation for our selection. “In order to evaluate the optimal solution using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method, many MCDM models can be used in optimal selection, such as TOPSIS, Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), AHP, ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalite (ELECTRE), and so on [34]. The Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) technique is used in this paper because it is easier to use, doesn't have strict rules about how the data is distributed or the size of the sample, and is better for sorting sample data internally [35], this paper adopts the TOPSIS technique. Moreover, the selection of the TOPSIS technique was based on its previous successful use in resolving decision-making problems of a similar nature [36].” 2.Moving on to Table 12, I noticed that part 6 is processed in 14, which then necessitates a move to a different cell. I would urge the author to propose a solution or an alternative approach to mitigate this issue of moving a part to another cell for another processing. Rep: Thank you for your careful observation and insightful comment on Table 12. “In Table 12 the parts (P2, P4, 66, and P8) are considered exceptional parts because of processed in more than one machine cell. exceptional parts can be eliminated by duplicating the bottleneck machine, redesigning parts, eliminating the bottleneck operations, and releasing the capacity of bottleneck machine.” 3.Upon reviewing the results, I found a striking resemblance to the outcomes presented in the C and R study [34]. In order to maintain the unique contribution of this paper, I recommend the author provide a comprehensive explanation detailing how their method diverges from the one in that study [34]. Rep: Our proposed approach differs from the methods mentioned in the comparison in its sensitivity to changing the weighting factor, as mentioned in the revised manuscript. “The findings indicate that the proposed approach outperforms or achieves results that are on par with those presented in the literature, which indicates the sensitivity of the proposed approach when taking a different value for the weighting factor to maximize grouping efficiency and grouping efficacy.” 4.Every research method has its inherent limitations. To present a balanced view and enhance the credibility of the study, could the author shed some light on the limitations of their chosen method? Rep: Thank you for highlighting the importance of acknowledging the inherent limitations of our research approach. in this context we added the following text. “It's possible that the study's performance measurements are insufficient to fully capture the full scope of a manufacturing system's efficiency and productivity. Furthermore, reliability or machine breakdowns are not dealt with in this paper because all the machines are assumed to be in perfect condition. These are the limitations of this study.” 5.Finally, in the interest of demonstrating the potential applicability and the future scope of their method, I would suggest the author discuss the possible future directions. How could this method be further extended or improved upon? What are the potential advancements or applications that could stem from this research? Rep: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the discussion of the potential applicability and future scope of our approach. we included a dedicated section to discuss possible future directions for our approach as follow: “Based on the results of this research, this approach can be applied to a wider range of CMS design issues, including but not limited to reliability, group scheduling, production planning, and alternative layouts (such as U-shaped, double-row, or others). Moreover, future research can focus on integrating environmental considerations into the design and optimization of cellular manufacturing systems. This can involve incorporating criteria related to energy consumption, waste reduction, and carbon footprint in the decision-making process, contributing to the development of environmentally conscious manufacturing practices.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296133.r002
7 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Ta-Chung Chu, Editor Cell Formation and Layout Design using Genetic Algorithm and TOPSIS: A Case Study of Hydraulic Industries State Company PONE-D-23-26796R1 Dear Dr. Dhayef, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ta-Chung Chu Academic Editor PLOS ONE ********** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296133.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Dec 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ta-Chung Chu, Editor PONE-D-23-26796R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dhayef, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ta-Chung Chu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296133.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .