A Scoping Review of Ontologies Relevant to Design Strategies in Response to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I sincerely enjoyed reading the paper, as it is easy to read and engaging. The author has managed to lay out the importance of the topic, as well as the research gap and the contribution of the paper. Namely, the paper provides a comprehensive overview of research efforts aimed at solving human, social, economic and environmental problems through design. The paper can thus serve as a very good starting point for readers who want to explore how design has been contributing to the sustainability goals. Nevertheless, despite the worthwhile topic, there remain several issues which concern the quality of the contribution. These are listed bellow, approximately in the same order as they appear in the manuscript. [lines 28-127, Introduction] Although the introduction is very well written, the link between the evolution of SDG (lines 29-111) and design is not clear (lines 111-122). The author only writes "So far, however, there has been a lack of literature review on how design strategies can assist designers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in implementing the SDGs.", but does not explain why something like that would even be needed. The author might thus consider elaborating within the paper how does the design fit in the bigger picture. [line 126, RQ2] The first part of the question asks what design strategies exist. Perhaps it would be better to revise the question, as there exist many design strategies and it is probably difficult to list them all. It would be better to limit the review only to the design strategies that concern different aspects of SDGs. In the end, all of the "strategies" reported in the manuscript have to some extent been linked to SDG, whereas all of the other strategies (e.g. the work from Pahl&Beitz, Hubka&Eder, Cross, Gero, etc.) have not been mentioned. [lines 133-135, definition of the term design strategy] Where does this definition come from? Namely, in the design literature, the design strategy can be associated with several aspects of the design process, from the micro to the macro level. Typically, it concerns the macro (overall) perspective of the design process (such as planning of product architecture or market strategies), and does not concern methods and tools employed by the designers throughout different phases of the design process. Hence it is important to clarify which stream of design research is referred here and why the term "strategy" was selected as an umbrella term for methodologies, frameworks, methods, tools, techniques, etc. One must be careful not to mix design strategies with design methods, methodologies, tools and approaches. Namely, LCA, DfX, TRIZ, QFD etc. are design methods and methodologies. CAD, CAE, CAM, CAPP etc. are typically associated with design tools or approaches. PLM could, for example, be considered a strategy. However, maybe it would be best to find some holistic term that encompasses all of the above - methods, methodologies, tools, approaches, etc. [line 174, Figure 1] The author might consider elaborating what different colour codings mean in Figure 1 (different text colours, different year colours, etc.). [lines 185-205, Section 2.2] How does the content of section 2.2 fit in relation to the previous section? Also, why was the scoping review method selected? What is the goal of the study, besides addressing the research questions? Consider referring back to the formulated research aim and then introduce a methodology which guides the study together with the research questions. This can be the first part of the Materials section. The introduced research methodology can then be followed by the literature review parts (currently 2.1 and 2.3). Namely, the current order of the Materials and methods section is a bit odd: it starts with the literature review (background on SDG) which is followed by the research methodology, which is then again followed by the literature review (continuation of SDG elaboration). [lines 199-202] The author states that the scoping review method can offer an overview of materials without critically assessing individual studies or synthesising evidence from different studies. How can the researcher determine whether the SDG are addressed if no critical assessment of studies is used? Please elaborate within the manuscript. [lines 242-244] Please explain how the four domains (human, economic, social and environmental) were defined/selected. Was some framework used or was the classification done ad hoc? Here, again, one must consider the interdependence (intra-linkages) between the goals, targets and indicators, and that it is difficult to classify each of them only within a single domain. One of the examples is the PSS paradigm, which has been categorised within the Environmental domain, although it can easily fit also in the remaining three, or the Design for Sustainable Behaviour which is closely related to design research on user-experience and user-behaviour. Hence, elaborating on what were the criteria for including design strategies in the domains would helps (see also the next comment). [lines 265, Materials and Methods] There is a lack of description on how the literature review was conducted. How was the search performed, which keywords were used to search the databases, how many results did the search return, how many were eliminated after title review, how many after abstract review, etc. What were the criteria for including design strategies in the review? Different terms are used across the paper to explain what the reviewed "design strategies" address. By doing so, there remains a lot of ambiguity about what these terms represent. For example, the "users" introduced in [line 285]. Please elaborate what is typically considered as user? Is it the person that uses the product/service for its main purpose? Namely, modern approaches have extended usability also to the lifecycle phases related to production, assembly, installation, service, etc. Hence, the other "stakeholders" are also, in fact, users of the product/service. Another examples is the "proficient and sensitive design" introduced in [lines 508-509]. What do these terms mean? [lines 269-421] It somewhat odd that the "Design for the Base of the Pyramid", "Design for Affordability" and "Design for Safety" were not mentioned in sections 3.1 or 3.2. Elaborating on how the literature search was conducted would help answering such questions. [line 329, Figure 3] Unfortunately, besides visualising the different clusters, Figure 3 is not very legible. Also, it is difficult to deduct the how certain methods, tools, approaches and theories satisfy or correlate with the listed targets, both directly and indirectly. Perhaps a matrix would be more appropriate for such purpose. Then, additional information could be provided for each of the cells (relations) with rationale on why the link/correlation was added. Also, it is not clear to what extend individual "strategies" satisfy the targets (because the target satisfaction is not defined as binary - either yes or no, but is rather also subject to different levels of satisfaction based on the employed strategy) There is even a "to what extent" measure imposed in research question 2. For example, given the target "Achieving higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation ", it is not clear how Reverse Engineering ensures all of these aspects. It can probably help for some of the aspects, but it is also important to specify how. With this comes in question also the usability of the developed ontology. Perhaps the targets could have been divided into more granular, but binary elements, for which it would be more clear whether a particular strategy helps in its satisfaction. Generally, a lot of the mentioned methods do not stem from the design domain, but rather other closely related fields such as quality assurance, systems engineering, etc. Perhaps it would be worth clarification within the paper. Moreover, although there are some efforts to explain relations between the design strategies and SDGs, for most of the listed strategies it remains unclear how and to what extend do they address the SDGs. For example, in [lines 395-396] the author claims that computer-aided techniques can be beneficial to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable", but does not elaborate how and to what extent can CAX help for this specific purpose. This is only one of the examples. Concerning the comment above, it can be added that in some places the goals are explicitly named (e.g. [lines 454-455]), whereas in some they are just listed using numbers (e.g. [lines 477-478]). It would be helpful if they were named everywhere. [lines 517-518] "Design stages have been recognized as a dominant life cycle process for the sustainability implementation of products [149]." - this sentence is difficult to understand. Design stages are life cycle process? Or are there fractions of that life cycle, that is, fractions of the product development part of the product's life cycle. Also, what is sustainability implementation of products? [lines 590-591] The author claims that "[t]his paper addresses the issues of how design strategies can help achieve the UN SDGs [...]". However, the paper does not reveal HOW design strategies can help achieve the UN SDGs. It rather shows which design strategies can potentially be employed to achieve certain aspects of the SD goals and targets. Consider reformulating the discussion based on what was done vs. what can be done as part of future work. For example, in [lines 594-596] it is written that "more than 110 design strategies were collected and synthesized as existing evidence in the literature to survey how they can address the implementation challenges of the SDGs". [lines 589-641, Discussion] A bit more is expected from the discussion given that such a comprehensive review of studies was done. There is a lot of room for reflection on the extent of current addressing of SDGs, as well as for highlighting the areas where there is an oversaturation of design strategies in contrast to the areas where there is a gap in addressing SDGs by means of design strategies. For the goals that have been suitably addressed, are there any exemplary studies that showcase how SDGs are achieved through design? Or is there only a potential for using the strategies for achieving SDGs? Perhaps it would be good to divide these into ones that are already used vs. the ones that have a potential for use towards SDGs. This would provide a great foundation for future work in both the design research and design practice. Moreover, how were the gaps identified? Also, concerning the gaps, have there been any efforts in the design field to address these gaps? If not, have there been efforts in other fields and what can design field learn from these approaches? The discussion could also propose guidelines on how the design research can expand to the unaddressed goals? What are the main targets and indicators which could and must be addressed? It good approach might be to reflect explicitly on the research questions provided in the introduction. For example, was the first research question even discussed? Finally, clear implications for design research in the context of sustainability must be made. What are some of the key implications of the presented research? And how can they be used by other researchers? A good discussion section would significantly improve the overall quality of the manuscript and its contribution on the topic of SDGs.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript proposes a very interesting literature review on the Design Strategies to accomplish the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
The manuscript is well written and organized, and it fits with the journal’s topics.
However, it also presents several flaws that need to be addressed before considering it for publication.
Firstly, the abstract should be revised as it does not make a synthesis of the study. In particular the list of the SDGs should be eliminated here. Please follow the journal rules regarding the abstract preparation: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.
In the keywords, “literature review” should be included, as well as “design methods”.
The introduction is well organized and comprehensive, however at the end of this section I suggest the Authors to provide a short synthesis of the manuscript sections to better guide the readers.
In section 2, more details on the literature review process should be provided. For instance, a diagram illustrating the whole process could be very useful.
As far as section 3 is concerned, it seems that there is a confusion about the proper meaning of “design strategy” and “design method/tool” from the design theory point of view. Actually, Design Strategy indicates designers what to do (for instance the design process that indicates the activities designers have to perform), while Design Methods belong to the so called “Design Tactics” as they indicate how to achieve a certain goal (for instance you can refer to the following article where a clear distinction between the strategy (the eco-design process) and the tactics (the methods) is provided and illustrated in detail: https://www.designsociety.org/publication/32055/PRODUCT%E2%80%99S+LIFE+CYCLE+MODELLING+FOR+ECO-DESIGNING+PRODUCT-SERVICE+SYSTEMS). In this study also a more useful explanation about eco-design is provided, and a life-cycle modelling tool is described (the Screening Life Cycle Moddelling) to improve the end-of-life options as well as maintenance operations.
Another unclear point concerns line 397, where DfX is explained as “design for Excellence”. Actually, from the design theory point of view, DfX refers to deisign strategies aimed at improving an X property of the product/system (as explained in: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03418-6 ).
Additionally, the servitization problem is not discussed sufficiently, although service design and in particular the Product-Service System (PSS) approach particularly fits with the SDGs strategies as it can allow product lifetime extension (e.g. a multiple use of the product), intensive use of product, and resource consumption minimization (e.g. you can refer to the following studies: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1823517; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9060139; https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1823517).
Finally, to provide a clearer overview of the results, at least a list of the targets and indicators should be provided (e.g. in the Appendices). This can help the reader in better understanding your classification.
In the concluding remarks, the discussion of the results need to be improved, highlighting in a clearer manner which are the benefits of this review study and its practical implications.
A language review is also needed to correct some typos.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
An important weakness of the article is the lack of empirical research results and references to practical solutions.
The methodology of empirical research should be described in more detail.
The article should present the results of empirical research more broadly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper entitled “A Scoping Review of Ontologies Relevant to Design Strategies in Response to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” is interesting and well written. The paper deals with a review on current design strategies in response to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Before the paper can be published, the author must deal with the following major amendments.
First, in order to meet the paper’s goal, the author used the scoping review method. As mentioned in the research methodology section, the above mentioned method includes 5 different parts. The author must clearly explain the analysis carried out concerning these steps of the method. Furthermore, the author should explain both the strengths of this method followed by the reasons for its implementation in this research and its possible weaknesses and caveats.
The paper’s sources must be clearly explained as well. Where did the author look for the data used? Is any software used to collect the data and implement the analysis of the scoping review method?
The author must clearly explain why a gas is found concerning the Goals 15, 16, and 17 and point out possible solution for this gap.
A section of managerial implications and proposed policies is needed as well.
Moreover, the author should clearly point out the paper’s novelty and contribution.
Last, the figures’ quality (especially figure 1) must be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for submitting the new, revised version of the manuscript on this interesting topic. The manuscript has improved sufficiently in respect to this reviewer's previous comments.Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have improved the quality of the paper sufficiently. Hence, in this reviewer's opinion it can be considered for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been verified and completed.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper entitled “A Scoping Review of Ontologies Relevant to Design Strategies in Response to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” is interesting and well written.
The paper deals with a review on current design strategies in response to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
The author seem to have rigourously reviwed the paper based on the comments provided in the first round of its revision; all the comments are sufficiently responded.
Based on the paper's analys we can its novelty concerning the combined use of ontologies and scoping reviews is a novel approach to the subject examined.
Thus, the paper can now be published in its present form.
