Standardization Framework for Sustainability from Circular Economy 4.0
, Alejandro Martín-Gómez, Francisco Aguayo-González and Antonio Córdoba-RoldánRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper's topic is interesting but your paper is not sufficiently developed.
Research gap
Research question need to be formulated..
Metodology
Your manuscript barely describes the cases (why selected? context? circular economy context?), the research methodology, the theoretical framing and contributions to theory, and so on.
My first concern is that it is still difficult to link the process logic of the research model to the actual data as presented in the paper
Literature Review
Need for literature review section in addition with research gap as sub section.
Originality and contribution
There is a room for improvement and no significant contribution at the moment.
The conclusions are not robust.
I have the feeling that the discussion acts as a teaser as it opens a number of doors, gives the reader a sneak preview of what’s behind the door, and closes it too quickly without providing enough details and explanations for justifying why it was opened.
Revision in text errors
line 246 Reference source not found.,
line 311 Reference source not found.
line 327 Reference source not found.
line 394 Reference source not found.
line 403 Reference source not found.
Figures source?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of his/her recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The conceptual framework illustrates many paper to explain the method, but how to use the framework to analyze the case proposed in the paper. Table 1, what dose “E” mean? According to the framework, how to obtain the Table 1. How to obtain the CE principle? There are two Table 1 in the paper. Table 1 to Tabel 7 need to be explained clearly. It is difficult to find the interpretation for Table. Therefore, I am wonder how to obtain the conclusion from the results. In the conclusion, what is the major finding in this paper?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of his/her recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I found very interesting your study. the analysis is very well conducted and the results are clear. The variables that you have been used in the analysis are explained very well.
he article illustrates a proposal for the standardization of the Circular Economy as a unified paradigm of sustainability, for the development of families of CE standards supplemented by an epistemological basis, that organizes under a single umbrella the different regulatory aspects that standardization bodies must consider in a unified manner.
He addresses a complete review of the different aspects of the Sustainable Development and Circular Economy, and of the methods, techniques and tools used to assess the effectiveness of the CE in the 3 pillars of sustainability,
In my opinion, the only aspect that is necessary to improve is the description of the potential offered by the digital transformation. Well, if I have to complain about something is the lack of/scarce presence of the description of the potential offered by the digital transformation.
Please, pay attention to:
rows 326: such us or such as?
row 385: idem as above
rows 429 and 431: should be table 6, not table 1
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of his/her recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Reference Error in
l. 95, 246, 256, 310, 327, 372, 384, 390, 391, 394, 403, 407, 414, 421 and 445.
l. 76
What is “adequate”? How does it defined?
l. 79
It is unclear where the contents explained in the text explain in Figure 1. Also, the explanation of Figure 1 itself may be insufficient
l. 157
Is [60] mistaken of [40]?
If [60], the reference list needs to be updated.
Fig. 2-8
There is no explaining or citing each figure
Tables 1-7
There is no explaining or citing each table
It may be related to “Error! Reference...”, but it is difficult to understand where each figure and each table corresponds to the explanation in the text.
Tables 2, 4, 6(1), 7
How should readers understand these tables?
Each table looks divisible, Should it be merged to one table?
l. 326 (l. 385)
“Developing this model, are considered four dimensions of interest such us: ...” -> as?
l. 368 “proposed model”
It is unclear where the proposed model is defined. Or maybe it's written in the text, but you should explain more distinctively where being proposed part. (What is contribution of this paper?)
l. 383
The author should have some explanation about "3E" somewhere.
Or the author may change the notation.
l.398
Since it is all “E”, it may be disturbing readability. I think it's easier for readers to write the full spelling.
The author should explain what "X" in the table represents. Depending on the cultural area, it represents NG or NA
l. 399
The table and its annotation are separated. It should be on the same page.
l. 431
Table 1 -> Table 6
l. 541
25. Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 142, 1–11.
-> 2017, 142, 2741-2751
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616318273)
l. 543
2016 -> 2017
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616321102)
l. 553
Liwarska-Bizukojc, E. The conceptual model of an eco-industrial park based upon ecological relationships. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 732–741.
->
Liwarska-Bizukojc, E., Bizukojc, M., Marcinkowski, A., Doniec, A.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652608002825)
(l.)
l. 568
Pauw, I. De; Kandachar, P. Nature inspired design: Strategies towards sustainability. In Proceedings of…
->
Pauw, I. De; Kandachar, P., Karana, E., Peck, D., & Wever, R.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elvin_Karana/publication/254906399_Nature_inspired_design_Strategies_towards_sustainability/links/02e7e52025b7f716d5000000/Nature-inspired-design-Strategies-towards-sustainability.pdf)
l. 609
Zhang, L. Advanced manufacturing systems : socialization characteristics and trends Advanced manufacturing systems : socialization characteristics. J. Intell. Manuf. 2015.
(may be… )->
Tao, F., Cheng, Y., Zhang, L., & Nee, A. Y. Advanced manufacturing systems: socialization characteristics and trends. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, (2017). 28(5), 1079-1094.
(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10845-015-1042-8)
l.648
THESES AND DISSERTATIONS--MECHANICAL ENGINEERING of University of Kentucky
(https://uknowledge.uky.edu/me_etds/97/)
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of his/her recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I want to begin by commending the authors for the work they invested in revising their article. As a result, the paper has progressed well compared to the last version
While overall the paper has greatly improved, there are a few important issues that still need to be addressed. My concern is that it is still difficult to link the process logic of the research model to the actual data as presented in the paper.
The methods not is adequately described.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of his/her recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
accept as it
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of their recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
l.113-114
Mayer. Mayer[28]
l. 130
The reference number of "Mayer", "Squires" and "Denzin" are not written
The layout of Table 3 and 4 should fit on the page
l. 576
it may be mistyping
Is there any limitation or future work for this framework?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her work in reviewing the manuscript and for his/her suggestions on how to improve the paper. The attached manuscript version includes modifications in light of their recommendations.
The language and formal aspects of the manuscript have been completely revised, and the paper in its entirety has been proofread by a native English translator.
In the following document attached, will be answered all comments and its reference in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
