Ecodesign—A Review of Reviews
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed manuscript deals with a strategic issue. I agree with the
authors that a "review of reviews" on the specific field of Ecodesign is now
appropriate and can be useful for clarifying some concepts, and tracing targeted
paths between the various related issues.
The approach used seems well founded, the articulation of the analysis is
detailed. The overall result seems to correspond to the objectives of the work,
which in my opinion is worthy of being published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the review of our article and the praising words.
There seems to be no criticism to respond to, perhaps except for a language check. We have made some minor adjustments regarding the language, and tried to reduce the use of passive voice.
Please feel free to let us know if there are any other questions or concerns.
Kind regards
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors provides a well-constructed review on ecodesign, the review would especially benefit novice researchers and students related this field. I think authors have to explain how did they decide to the collection of literature ranged from 1994 to 2018 and I suggest to switch Table 1 to Appendix and attach it to the end of article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article, and for your constructive criticism.
To address the issues you have raised:
1) We moved table 1 to the appendix, which should hopefully improve readability of the article.
2) Regarding the time span of 1994-2018, into which the reviewed articles fall: Starting out, we did not impose any limits on the publication date for our literature retrieval process (see section 2.1 in the paper). The earliest paper that we retrieved, using the described retrieval process, is from 1994. Earlier relevant publications may exist, however, we could not identify any by searching for them using the search terms we used, nor from an upstream/downstream "snowball search" of the literature. 2018 is the year of the most recent publication included in the review, as the literature retrieval was conducted in 2019. After that, we moved on to the analysis of the literature, and to the conceptualizing and writing of the article. That is the reason why no articles later than that are included in the review article.
I hope that you find our response to the issues you have raised satisfactory. If not, please feel free to let us know, and we will be happy to elaborate further.
Kind regards
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The review is not ready to be published and it needs more efforts to be interesting.
I do recommend to improve it carefully and resubmit again.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our article.
However, we were unable to extract constructive criticism from your review to which we could respond. If you have more concrete recommendations on what you would like to see changed, then please let us know, and we are happy to address it.
Kind regards,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Resubmit the paper after a thorough improvement.
