- **Reviews**
	- *Reviewing: 1*
		- It is a good, comprehensive and well-developed research article, but it lacks the desirable quality in three specific parts, which I list below:  
		  background-color:: yellow
			- The related work appears as a somewhat disjointed section of lower quality than the rest of the whole. I suggest making an **SLR** indicating the methodology used, criteria for inclusion, exclusion, etc. and thus create this section systematically indicating similar existing solutions.
			  background-color:: red
			- These existing solutions should structure the **research questions of the article,** or be connected to them, demonstrating with use cases and quantitative analyses what improvements in terms of effectiveness and/or efficiency the proposal presents compared to existing solutions.
			- A **discussion section** should be created on the **threats to the validation** carried out, discussing intrinsic and extrinsic threats, and how they have been addressed.
	- *Reviewing: 2*
		- This is a well-written paper that aligns with the journal topic. Only minor issues need to be addressed.  
		  background-color:: green
			- The **overuse of footnotes**. Abbreviations should be defined in the main text rather than in the footnotes. For example, mention in the main text "Role Activity Diagram (RAD)" instead of "RAD\footnote{Role Activity Diagram}."
			- Another round of a quick scan of the paper by the authors can **fix some minor writing/language issues** throughout the paper.
			- Section 4 is "Discussion." Section 5, "Discussing LCDPS according to BPMN Quality Criteria," reads like another discussion. These sections could be presented with better titles. **Section 4 probably needs a more descriptive name**, like section 5.