Can Fashion Be Circular? A Literature Review on Circular Economy Barriers, Drivers, and Practices in the Fashion Industry’s Productive Chain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is very interesting as well as the academic contribution of the research. The manuscript is clear, well written and organized. The research design is very good. In particular, the introduction section is well contextualized as well as methodology, results and discussion.
Some minor revisions:
- The following studies should be considered:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125120
https://doi.org/10.17221/343/2020-AGRICECON
- Tables and figures should report the sources.
- An extensive editing of English language and style is required.
Author Response
Itajubá (MG), October 25rd 2021
To:
Nikola Lučić, Assistant Editor, MDPI DOO
Sustainability
Subject: First Revised version of the Manuscript ID: sustainability-1431975 titled "Can Fashion be Circular? A Literature Review on Circular Economy Barriers, Drivers and Practices in the Fashion Industry’s Productive Chain"
Dear Assistant Editor,
Greetings and good day!
We are pleased about the paper evaluation and thanks for the effort you made along with the reviewers during the evaluation process. We much appreciated all your feedback and suggestions for improvement.
We thank for Reviewer 1 comments, and suggestions during all reviewer process. Our comments to the final issues Reviewer 1 are given in a table. We have included in the first column the questions or comments for crosschecking with the last column (Reply), where we have included summary explanations of our modifications in response to the questions or comments.
The changes in the revised version are highlighted using the Microsoft Office change-tracking tool as submitted in the Author Centre. The revised version without highlighted changes has been uploaded in a separate file.
We sincerely hope that you will appreciate reading the second revised manuscript and consider our improvements enough for publication in the Sustainability Journal.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if any further information is necessary.
We look forward to your feedback.
Kind regards,
The authors
|
Reviewer: 1 – Minor revision |
|
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
The topic of the paper is very interesting as well as the academic contribution of the research. The manuscript is clear, well written and organized. The research design is very good. In particular, the introduction section is well contextualized as well as methodology, results and discussion. |
Thank you for your comments. We also appreciated the receptive and encouraging way that you received our research, and we try to improve all the issues you pointed out. In this table, you will find responses to all your observations. Please see the highlight changes in the revised version. |
|
- The following studies should be considered: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125120 https://doi.org/10.17221/343/2020-AGRICECON |
Thank you for your suggestion.
We included both studies on page 14, lines 551 to 552.
|
|
- Tables and figures should report the sources. |
We provided the sources for all tables and figures. |
|
- An extensive editing of English language and style is required. |
We conducted another review of English at the end of this version. Also, we attached a certification about the English, revised now by two native English-speaking professionals |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I commend the authors for the paper and consider it provides a significant contribution to the field of study.
I suggest the following improvements:
Page 4 line pg 152, listed instead of listen?
Did you use connectors in the keywords? The process has to be replicable, so the authors have to provide all the information so thar any reader proceed with the same instructions and be able of finding the same results.
For example “The first reading excluded articles that 162 were not related to the scope of the research Project” – the authors have to refer exactly what were the topics that were excluded. If I tried to replicate I would not know what to exclude.
Regarding the content analysis, did the author use any software of content analysis.
Finally, as a systematic literature review, the conclusions should enhance the avenues for future research and this part should be significantly improved.
Author Response
Itajubá (MG), October 25rd 2021
To:
Nikola Lučić, Assistant Editor, MDPI DOO
Sustainability
Subject: First Revised version of the Manuscript ID: sustainability-1431975 titled "Can Fashion be Circular? A Literature Review on Circular Economy Barriers, Drivers and Practices in the Fashion Industry’s Productive Chain"
Dear Assistant Editor,
Greetings and good day!
We are pleased about the paper evaluation and thanks for the effort you made along with the reviewers during the evaluation process. We much appreciated all your feedback and suggestions for improvement.
We thank for Reviewer 2 comments, and suggestions during all reviewer process. Our comments to the final issues Reviewer 2 are given in a table. We have included in the first column the questions or comments for crosschecking with the last column (Reply), where we have included summary explanations of our modifications in response to the questions or comments.
The changes in the revised version are highlighted using the Microsoft Office change-tracking tool as submitted in the Author Centre. The revised version without highlighted changes has been uploaded in a separate file.
We sincerely hope that you will appreciate reading the second revised manuscript and consider our improvements enough for publication in the Sustainability Journal.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if any further information is necessary.
We look forward to your feedback.
Kind regards,
The authors
|
Reviewer: 2 – Minor revision |
|
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
I commend the authors for the paper and consider it provides a significant contribution to the field of study.
|
Thank you for your comments we appreciate all of them. We have made a significant effort to address all specific issues recommended.
In this table, you will find responses to all your observations.
Please see the highlight changes in the revised version. |
|
I suggest the following improvements: Page 4 line pg 152, listed instead of listen? |
Sorry, it was a mistake. We corrected the word from “listen” to “listed”.
Please check the highlighted changes on page 4, line 162. |
|
Did you use connectors in the keywords? The process has to be replicable, so the authors have to provide all the information so thar any reader proceed with the same instructions and be able of finding the same results. For example, “The first reading excluded articles that were not related to the scope of the research Project” – the authors have to refer exactly what were the topics that were excluded. If I tried to replicate, I would not know what to exclude. |
We try to make a significant effort to detail the processes as recommended.
Please check the highlighted changes on page 4, lines 164 to 183. |
|
Regarding the content analysis, did the author use any software of content analysis. |
Unfortunately, in this article, we do not use any software for content analysis. |
|
Finally, as a systematic literature review, the conclusions should enhance the avenues for future research and this part should be significantly improved. |
We improved the conclusion section, mainly the future studies suggestions, page 15 - lines 600 to 609.
We have carefully reviewed all changes requests in the text and have kept all the changes highlighted. We hope you can consider our efforts to improve the manuscript. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I did not expect that it is possible - using 'only' a literature review - to conduct an analysis at this - high - level.
The aim (indicated in the executive summary) should not be an analysis - it is only a tool.
Author Response
Itajubá (MG), October 25rd 2021
To:
Nikola Lučić, Assistant Editor, MDPI DOO
Sustainability
Subject: First Revised version of the Manuscript ID: sustainability-1431975 titled "Can Fashion be Circular? A Literature Review on Circular Economy Barriers, Drivers and Practices in the Fashion Industry’s Productive Chain"
Dear Assistant Editor,
Greetings and good day!
We are pleased about the paper evaluation and thanks for the effort you made along with the reviewers during the evaluation process. We much appreciated all your feedback and suggestions for improvement.
We thank for Reviewer 3 comments, and suggestions during all reviewer process. Our comments to the final issues Reviewer 3 are given in a table. We have included in the first column the questions or comments for crosschecking with the last column (Reply), where we have included summary explanations of our modifications in response to the questions or comments.
The changes in the revised version are highlighted using the Microsoft Office change-tracking tool as submitted in the Author Centre. The revised version without highlighted changes has been uploaded in a separate file.
We sincerely hope that you will appreciate reading the second revised manuscript and consider our improvements enough for publication in the Sustainability Journal.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if any further information is necessary.
We look forward to your feedback.
Kind regards,
The authors
|
Reviewer: 3 – Minor revision |
|
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
I did not expect that it is possible - using 'only' a literature review - to conduct an analysis at this - high - level. |
Thank you for your comments. We also appreciated the receptive and encouraging way that you received our research. We also would like to thank your careful evaluation of the manuscript and the relevant comments and suggestions that were offered.
In this table, you will find responses to your observation.
|
|
The aim (indicated in the executive summary) should not be an analysis - it is only a tool. |
We change the “analysis” to “identify”.
Please see the highlight changes in the revised version. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
