Peer-Review Record
The Time-Varying Effect of Asset Prices on Turkey’s Circular Economy
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12373; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212373
Reviewer 1:
Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12373; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212373
Submission received: 17 September 2021
/
Revised: 21 October 2021
/
Accepted: 5 November 2021
/
Published: 9 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of Industry 4.0 on Sustainability and the Circular Economy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Strong Points
- The Abstract is well organized and gives the key aspects of the paper.
- The Literature review provides a rich discussion on the area of analysis.
- Results are chronologically described.
Rooms for Improvement
- The introduction needs to be revised by explicitly mentioning the paper’s main objective (s) followed by the novelty issue.
- I recommend that authors should run the unit root tests to double-check the results in the following manner: i) with constant only at both levels and first difference and ii) with constant and trend at both levels and first difference.
- Can the authors apply ARDL Bounds cointegration using response surface regression with accurate, critical values and approximate p-values proposed by Kripfganzand Schneider (2018) to check the robustness of the results?
- I suggest testing each variable using the CUSUM test prior to the model estimation to check their recursive stability.
- Please revise the paragraph just above Table 2. According to statistics, there is no cointegration among the variables of interest; however, it is written that “we reject the null hypothesis of “no cointegration” at the 5 percent level by both the trace and maximum eigenvalue tests”. The line also contradicts the subsequent line.
- The conclusion needs an overhaul. Please revise the conclusion section by providing appropriate policy suggestions based on the Turkish economy and potential future extension avenue of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and written in an academic style. However, I see there could some minor adjustments as follows:
- Line 112: I think the authors mean 'intertemporal substitution effect' and not 'substation' effect.
- Line 121: I think the word 'opposite' is more appropriate that 'apposite'.
- Line 127: the sentence ending with 'and opposite effect to substitution effect' is redundant, hence can be removed to avoid confusion with arguments presented earlier on.
- Check Lines 132, 242 and 249 for readability
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
