Reviewer has chosen not to be AnonymousOverall Impression:
RejectTechnical Quality of the paper:
Incomplete or inappropriateNovelty:
Lack of noveltyData availability:
All used and produced data (if any) are FAIR and openly available in established data repositoriesLength of the manuscript:
The length of this manuscript is about right
Summary of paper in a few sentences:
The authors presents a state of the art in methodologies to develop ontologies, and arrive to the conclusion that no standard methodology is available and that, therefore, a new one should be elaborated. In the same paper, they address the proposal of such a methodology.
Reasons to accept:
The paper should not be accepted.
Reasons to reject:
The paper exhibits important deficiencies. First of all, the most recent papers cited in the bibligraphy were published by at least one of the author of the present paper. The rest of the papers were published in 2010 or before. Thus, key papers on ontology patters or collaborative development are not mentioned. Likewise, in the presentation of the methodologies of the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s, a fundamental book, "Ontological Engineering" by Gómez-Pérez and colleagues, is not cited. This ommision is important, for example, because a lot of details about Methontology are provided. Neither are the application of test driven development or agile methodologies to ontology development referred.
The lacks in the state of the question are propagated to the proposed ontology.
Focussing on more theoretical aspects of the paper, at the beginning of the introduction, when the notion of ontology both in philosophy and engineering is presented, key authors like Nicola Guarino or Tom Gruber are ommitted.
There are also statements that are not proved. For example, in the abstract of the paper, it is said "the lack of methodological standarization on ontologies development has greatly hampered its adoption in the construction process". Facts supporting this statement in a convincing way are not provided.