Remanufacturing end-of-life passenger car waste sheet steel into mesh sheet: A sustainability assessment

Ziyad Tariq Abdullah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258399

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 11, 2021
15 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Dragan Pamucar, Editor PONE-D-21-18014 Remanufacturing End-of-life Passenger Car Waste Sheet Steel into Mesh Sheet: A Sustainability Assessment PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tariq, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 29 2021 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: http://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, Dragan Pamucar 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to which you refer in your text on page 6, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: Yes 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: The paper "Remanufacturing End-of-life Passenger Car Waste Sheet Steel into Mesh Sheet: A Sustainability Assessment" falls within the scope of the journal "Plos One" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. A lot of core elements of one well-written and performed study is missing, so the paper needs major improvements. Please consider the following comments. - Clear aims, the main contributions, and novelty are missing in the abstract. The abstract should be concise with a description of the core elements of the paper. - The paper isn't well structured. Should be restructured: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature review, 3. Methodology, 4. Results or case study with subsections, 5. Discussion, 6 Conclusion - In the introduction section the following tasks should be fulfilled: the introduction should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: What are the gaps in literature? What are the main aims of this article?" - Most of the current section Introduction should be moved to new-formed 2. Literature review. - In the Methodology section should be ensured the diagram flow with showed research. - Why you have decided to use best-worst multi-criteria analysis. Explain. Also, should be represented each step with equations. - More relevant references newer date should be added: 1) Biswas, T. K., & Das, M. C. (2020). Selection of the barriers of supply chain management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19 impacts. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), 1-12. 2) Fazlollahtabar, H., & Kazemitash, N. (2021). Green supplier selection based on the information system performance evaluation using the integrated Best-Worst Method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering. 3) Vasiljević, M., Fazlollahtabar, H., Stević, Ž., & Vesković, S. (2018). A rough multicriteria approach for evaluation of the supplier criteria in automotive industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(1), 82-96. - Comparative analysis with other MCDM methods is missing. Reviewer #2: Thanks for giving me opportunity to review this article. topic is very novel, different and attracting for readers. abstract and introduction sections are well designed and written. some recent references can be added in terms of WSS-MSS remanufacturing process. methodology section is explicitly written and stated too. Under results section there needs to be some changes. Equation 8 needs to be rewritten as S12=(WMM5+WTT4+WCC3+WEE2+WSS1)/5 Same changes need to be done for Eqs. (9-12). some different future suggestions can be added to conclusion section. there are some typos so proofreading can be useful. ****** 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.0258399.r001
Revision 1
30 Jul 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: The paper "Remanufacturing End-of-life Passenger Car Waste Sheet Steel into Mesh Sheet: A Sustainability Assessment" falls within the scope of the journal "Plos One" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. A lot of core elements of one well-written and performed study is missing, so the paper needs major improvements. Thank you for the opportunity to revise the paper. I have included most of your suggestions, as described here. Please consider the following comments. - Clear aims, the main contributions, and novelty are missing in the abstract. The abstract should be concise with a description of the core elements of the paper. The abstract has been modified to include these parts (Page 2, lines 15-18, 30-35) - The paper isn't well structured. Should be restructured: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature review, 3. Methodology, 4. Results or case study with subsections, 5. Discussion, 6 Conclusion While I did not follow the suggested section titles, the structure of the submitted paper did indeed follow the suggested format. To further follow this standard format, the second section has been renamed “Literature Review,” and “Modelling methods” was changed to “Methodology.” As the Results and Discussion section is quite short, I believe that a combined section is acceptable. - In the introduction section the following tasks should be fulfilled: the introduction should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: What are the gaps in literature? What are the main aims of this article?" Field significance: waste vehicles account for a large fraction of land fill and contain high embodied energy that has the potential to be recovered. Remanufacturing processes have the potential to recover this “waste” material and can provide a profitable business strategy. This was addressed in the original document (Introduction). Gaps in the knowledge: There are currently few practical remanufacturing methods for waste sheet steel. Most is sent to land fill or recovered by energy-intensive smelting processes. The proposed remanufacturing process to produce mesh sheet has potential to address these problems; however, its viability and sustainability needs to be clarified. Some further discussion of this gap in the knowledge has been added to the Introduction (Page 5-6, lines 112-113). Main aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sustainability of the proposed remanufacturing process. This was stated in the final paragraph of the introduction. - Most of the current section Introduction should be moved to new-formed 2. Literature review. I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. In its revised form, I believe that the Introduction follows the PLOS ONE guidelines and does not include an extensive discussion of the literature. Perhaps the reviewer is referring to the section named “WSS-MSS Remanufacturing”. This is a separate section to the Introduction, and while this part does indeed discuss existing literature related to the potential waste stream, it is introducing the proposed WSS-MSS process, which is a novel process proposed in this paper. Hence, I do not think that it is appropriate to include this as a literature review. - In the Methodology section should be ensured the diagram flow with showed research. Thank you for this good suggestion. A flowchart of the analysis method was included (Page 12, line 240) - Why you have decided to use best-worst multi-criteria analysis. Explain. Also, should be represented each step with equations. The best-worst multi-criteria method was chosen as such techniques can provide a more integrated assessment to reduce large fluctuations in weight values. This explanation has been included in the text (Page 20–21; Line 365-378). The relevant equations have been added as Eq. (6)–(9) (Pages 19–20; lines 346-364). - More relevant references newer date should be added: 1) Biswas, T. K., & Das, M. C. (2020). Selection of the barriers of supply chain management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19 impacts. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), 1-12. 2) Fazlollahtabar, H., & Kazemitash, N. (2021). Green supplier selection based on the information system performance evaluation using the integrated Best-Worst Method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering. 3) Vasiljević, M., Fazlollahtabar, H., Stević, Ž., & Vesković, S. (2018). A rough multicriteria approach for evaluation of the supplier criteria in automotive industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(1), 82-96. Thank you for these suggestions, they have been added as references [29], [30], and [31] in the revised manuscript. - Comparative analysis with other MCDM methods is missing. A comparison has been added to the text, as required (page 20,21, lines 365–378). Reviewer #2: Thanks for giving me opportunity to review this article. topic is very novel, different and attracting for readers. abstract and introduction sections are well designed and written. methodology section is explicitly written and stated too. Thank you for the comments. I am happy that the reviewer was able to follow the argument of the manuscript. some recent references can be added in terms of WSS-MSS remanufacturing process. As this is a newly proposed remanufacturing process, there is little previous literature. I have added two of my previous conference papers to the original manuscript (refs [13,14]), but to the best of my knowledge, there are no recent references. Other references in the field of machine tool remanufacturing were included as refs [17-20]. Under results section there needs to be some changes. Equation 8 needs to be rewritten as S12=(WMM5+WTT4+WCC3+WEE2+WSS1)/5 Same changes need to be done for Eqs. (9-12). Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have now defined a more general equation (Eq. 10; page 25, line 457) and this was used to calculate the SI values for all scenarios, where the exponent for E, S, and C varied. These changes have been made (pages 26-27, lines 469, 473, 478, 482, 487, 491) some different future suggestions can be added to conclusion section. Thank you for this suggestion, I have included some future work (page 30, 560-563) there are some typos so proofreading can be useful. The revised manuscript has been thoroughly checked before resubmission. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter PONE-D-21-18014.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258399.r002
27 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Dragan Pamucar, Editor Remanufacturing End-of-life Passenger Car Waste Sheet Steel into Mesh Sheet: A Sustainability Assessment PONE-D-21-18014R1 Dear Dr. Tariq, 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, Dragan Pamucar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. 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: (No Response) ****** 5. 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: (No Response) ****** 6. 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: The authors have revised the paper and now is more quality. Also, the authors have addressed all my comments. Reviewer #2: All necessary revisions are made by author(s). So manuscript is suitable for publication in PLOS ONE journal. ****** 7. 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258399.r003
Formally Accepted
1 Oct 2021 Acceptance Letter - Dragan Pamucar, Editor PONE-D-21-18014R1 Remanufacturing end-of-life passenger car waste sheet steel into mesh sheet: A sustainability assessment Dear Dr. Abdullah: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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 plosone@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. Dragan Pamucar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258399.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 .