Exploring Scientific Discourse on Marine Litter in Europe: Review of Sources, Causes and Solutions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I want to congratulate the authors for their work on the paper "Exploring scientific discourse on marine litter in Europe: Review of source, causes, and solutions". The paper is well documented and structured.
- In the header, the page number should be corrected.
- Please use the correct template for publishing in Sustainability journal: on page 4, the row’s numbering started, although it should start from the first page.
- There are many statements in this paper that are not referenced. Although the authors didn’t prove their statements, they needed to reference them. For example, on page 2, the references for the last two paragraphs before section 2 are missing. Please make sure you include them. The statements from the first and second paragraphs on page 4 (lines 3–30) and the last paragraph on page 5 (lines 80–85) need also to be referenced.
- In the last paragraph of section 1, a definition of both types of stakeholders should be provided;
- Half of page 3 is empty. Please add the table 1 and the text after this table on page 3 to avoid having empty parts on pages; Same for page 15 (or page 12 from the header)
- Table 1 is not referenced in the text. The same for Table 4 and Figure 2.
- Table 1: Why is the italic text used in the second column? Should it mean something?
- Please add table 7 after the paragraph where it is referred to; after lines 314-320.
- Please check the phrase from lines 311-312: "This signals a need to have ..". In this phrase, there are some grammatical mistakes.
- References: the number 73 is missing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer! Thank you for the constructive comments
- In the header, the page number should be corrected. FIXED.
- Please use the correct template for publishing in Sustainability journal: on page 4, the row’s numbering started, although it should start from the first page. FIXED
- There are many statements in this paper that are not referenced. Although the authors didn’t prove their statements, they needed to reference them. For example, on page 2, the references for the last two paragraphs before section 2 are missing. Please make sure you include them FIXED.
- The statements from the first and second paragraphs on page 4 (lines 3–30) and the last paragraph on page 5 (lines 80–85) need also to be referenced. FIXED: references have been added and language has been made more clear
- In the last paragraph of section 1, a definition of both types of stakeholders should be provided; FIXED: the language is made more clear.
- Half of page 3 is empty. Please add the table 1 and the text after this table on page 3 to avoid having empty parts on pages; Same for page 15 (or page 12 from the header) (FIXED: this seems not to be an issue in the version we are working on; We assume this is fixed by MDPI?)
- Table 1 is not referenced in the text FIXED. The same for Table 4 and Figure 2 FIXED: references added.
- Table 1: Why is the italic text used in the second column? Should it mean something? FIXED: First row and first column should be italics to mark row- and column-headings.
- Please add table 7 after the paragraph where it is referred to; after lines 314-320. FIXED
- Please check the phrase from lines 311-312: "This signals a need to have ..". In this phrase, there are some grammatical mistakes. FIXED
- References: the number 73 is missing. FIXED
Reviewer 2 Report
The article treats the topic of the scientific discourse around marine litter, its causes and solutions. It presents an analysis of the available peer reviewed articles in the last twenty years about marine litter in Europe with a focus on Denmark and Norway. The analysis aims to unravel the different understandings of the complex problem of marine litter (its sources and solutions) and to recognize, quantify and connect the main topics within that context that have been treated so far by the recent available scientific literature. The result is the structuring of story lines connecting the sources of marine litter to the behaviors or other factors that caused them, with the possible solution to the problems. In general the formulation of such story lines offers a useful tool for summarizing and spreading the available scientific knowledge to the large public, in particular to policy makers and interested citizens. It also helps to identify the weak spots within a research topic, and the areas that need further investigation. In my opinion this is a useful and valid approach that should be implemented much more.
The analysis and methodology of this publication are done correctly and the commentary in the discussions and conclusions are adequately argumented. The weakness of the article is that it has many abstract concepts that could be simplified and perhaps summarized in the introduction section and in the discussion. In practice I would recommend a shortening of the article by a 10 to 20%.
In addition I have a specific remark about figure 1 which in my opinion has not been adequately structured, I found it difficult to read and it took me a long time to understand what was its message. Therefore I would suggest to redo this figure with a clearer content and meaning. In figure 2 I would recommend increasing the fonts and perhaps to use more colors, for example the boxes containing the "sources", "causes" and "solutions" might have different colors and also the arrows could be a bit bolder and not barely visible.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thankyou fo rthe constructive comments. We have adjusted the paper as outlined below.
"The analysis and methodology of this publication are done correctly and the commentary in the discussions and conclusions are adequately argumented. The weakness of the article is that it has many abstract concepts that could be simplified and perhaps summarized in the introduction section and in the discussion. In practice I would recommend a shortening of the article by a 10 to 20%."
We appreciate the feedback. It is our assessment that the analytical concepts are an important part of the contribution of the article, as this opens for a new way of discussing strategies targeting marine litter (and like challenges). We have added pointers in the theoretical framework connecting the analytical concepts to case-specific concepts. Furthermore, we have strengthened the the connection to the framework in the discussion and conclusion.
In addition, I have a specific remark about figure 1 which in my opinion has not been adequately structured, I found it difficult to read and it took me a long time to understand what was its message. Therefore I would suggest to redo this figure with a clearer content and meaning.
You are correct: the figure did have a problem (our apologies). We have simplified figure 1 (reducing icon-types to a minimum and increased font), enhanced the link and explanation to the figure in the text, and aligned content of the figure to the text (‘storylines’ corrected to ‘discourse coalitions’).
In figure 2 I would recommend increasing the fonts and perhaps to use more colors, for example the boxes containing the "sources", "causes" and "solutions" might have different colors and also the arrows could be a bit bolder and not barely visible.
We have made the figure more readable based on these suggestions
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I believe that the present manuscript called "Exploring scientific discourse on marine litter in Europe: Review of sources, causes and solutions" is an article on a relevant topic, and that it may be of great interest to readers. It should be improved a lot, since the importance and scientific novelty of this study are not well highlighted. The final conclusions are not clear. And in addition, it presents problems in terms of its presentation (details). However, I think that after these "Corrections" it could be a good manuscript for this Journal. Here are my suggested fixes:
introduction
Paragraph 2: Are these data (in publications) consistent with those declared by organizations such as the UN, Greenpeace, etc? Perhaps it is good to mention it.
At the end of it, it is mentioned how this work will be carried out. But it is not detailed if it is scientifically new! They should mention why the publication of this study is important.
2.Framework and Methods
The study is based on peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and "ultimo" 2021. Correct Language.
2.1 explains the theoretical framework further.
2.1. theoretical framework
They both have the same numbering. Correct these details throughout the document.
Improve Figure 1 Quality
The Quality of Figure 2 should also be improved
Discussions and Conclusions
I think the discussions should be separated from the conclusions. I have read them carefully and they seem consistent with the objectives, and very assertive, but it is not possible to clearly see the difference between them. An extensive discussion (as presented in this document) would be better, followed by point-by-point conclusions that are very clear.
Regards
Author Response
introduction
Paragraph 2: Are these data (in publications) consistent with those declared by organizations such as the UN, Greenpeace, etc? Perhaps it is good to mention it.
Great remark/question. These data are frequently used by the UN and major environmental NGOs when highlighting the need for mitigation. We have added this detail in the paragraph.
At the end of it, it is mentioned how this work will be carried out. But it is not detailed if it is scientifically new! They should mention why the publication of this study is important.
Thank you for the feedback. A sentence is now added to describe the goal of the study, i.e. to contribute to the lacking discourse analyses on marine litter, and thus better informed decision making. A brief description of existing discourse analyses on the topic was already included in the introduction.
2.Framework and Methods
The study is based on peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and "ultimo" 2021. Correct Language.
Changed accordingly.
2.1 explains the theoretical framework further.
2.1. theoretical framework
They both have the same numbering. Correct these details throughout the document.
We cannot re-find the same typo in our master document
Improve Figure 1 Quality
We have simplified the figure 1 (reducing icon-types to a minimum and increased font), enhanced the lnk and explanation to the figure in the text, and aligned content of the figure to the text.
The Quality of Figure 2 should also be improved
We have made the figure 2 more readable and clearer to understand.
Discussions and Conclusions
I think the discussions should be separated from the conclusions. I have read them carefully and they seem consistent with the objectives, and very assertive, but it is not possible to clearly see the difference between them. An extensive discussion (as presented in this document) would be better, followed by point-by-point conclusions that are very clear.
Thank you for this valuable feedback. The sections are now separated, allowing the reader to more clearly see the main take-aways of the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Hello, the suggested corrections were made.
Congratulations
