Household Waste Sorting and Engagement in Everyday Life Occupations After Migration—A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed research «Household waste sorting and engagement in everyday life occupations after migration – a scoping review» falls within the scope of Sustainability. According to the reviewer’s opinion, major revisions are required in order to accept this research study for publication in Sustainability. Please, comply with the following suggestions and comments:
Comment 1: In my opinion, the aforementioned manuscript needs more data in order to be published in Sustainability. It approaches the subject very theoretically. I am not so sure if your readers will find innovative data in this work.
Comment 2: The question that it needs to be answered is how it extends the existing knowledge on the topic.
Comment 3: When you submit the corrected version, please do check thoroughly, in order to avoid grammar flaws.
Comment 4: More recent papers in the field should be integrated in the literature review.
Carefully check the references, so as to make sure they are all complete and follow the Guidelines to Authors.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We appreciated them and hope that we addressed them in a constructive way. Please see the attached document for detailed responses and where the changes can be found in the text.
Best regards,
Coralie Hellwig
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study that highlights a scoping review of household waste sorting and engagement in everyday life occupations after migration is so interesting and so informative to the future researchers and readers. The study also relates majorly to resources, recovery, society, economics, environment and sustainability. It deems so worthy of publication in the “Sustainability” Journal.
The reviewer’s suggestions and comments are as follows:
Abstract
[1] In abstract, the first sentence is long and might be confusing to the readers. Thus, please rewrite the sentence to get to the point.
[2] In line-20, please correct “was” to “were” to agree with “Both…”.
[3] In line-51, please correct “their everyday routines” to “their daily routines”.
Introduction
This section has a very resourceful study background and literature review.
Materials and Methods
This section is systematically well-constructed.
Results and Discussion
This section has insightful results and discussion.
Conclusion
This section is well-concluded.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We appreciate that you highlighted the grammatical flaws. We corrected them and revised the manuscript. Please see the attached document for a detailed response and the changes that were made.
Best regards,
Coralie Hellwig
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment: This paper describes the current state of the literature on sustainable engagement in waste sorting 19 post immigration.
Introduction: The Introduction should be improve focusing on the aim of the paper, main methods, main results and few recommendations based on empirical results. The authors should explain their research novelty compared to previous studies from literature.
Methodology: Indicate limits and advantages of methods used in literature. Indicate if alternative methods are better.
Results: The interpretations are too superficial. More comments of the results in literature are required and comparisons with similar studies from literature. The contribution is weak. Your empirical contribution could add value to this paper.
Discussion: More comparisons with previous studies and a critical position regarding literature are required.
Bibliography/References: Add more references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks for the comments and suggestions that you have given us. We appreciated them and hope that we addressed them in a constructive way. Please see the attached document for a detailed response to your suggestions.
Best regards,
Coralie Hellwig
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have complied with my suggestions. Therefore the paper should be accepted for publication in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
