The focus on largely technological aspects and fragmented literature on AMRs, as acknowledged by the authors, limits the generalizability of the findings and framework to broader operational research and management contexts. The emphasis on technical advancements without sufficient consideration of practical implementation challenges (e.g., organizational change management, workforce training, cybersecurity) weakens the paper's practical relevance.

The chosen methodology, consisting primarily of a literature review, is descriptive rather than analytical or empirical. Lack of quantitative analysis, case studies, or experiments restricts validation of the proposed framework and research agenda. The reliance on Scimago Journal Rank for article selection introduces a potential bias towards established journals, possibly overlooking valuable research in emerging venues.

The framework and research agenda lack specificity in addressing the socio-technical implications of AMR deployment. Issues like job displacement, human-robot collaboration dynamics, ethical considerations, and the impact on labor markets are largely absent. This omission limits the paper's contribution to a holistic understanding of the impact of AMRs on intralogistics and society.

While the paper distinguishes AMRs from AGVs based on autonomy and navigation flexibility, it doesn't offer a precise definition of "decentralization" in the context of AMR control. Different degrees or types of decentralization could exist, and the paper's lack of clarity on this concept limits the framework's practical applicability.