Regional Implications of the Circular Economy and Food Greentech Companies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for submitting your work.
I appreciate the efforts of the author in writing this manuscript but my judgement is not positive. The level of quality and scientific contributions are not enough to publish the manuscript on Sustainability.
The main problem of this manuscript is the lack of scientific novelty, which is the essence of a scientific paper and differentiates it from a divulgative article. I would classify the manuscript as a simple commentary of other papers.
There are other reasons why I don’t think this work is mature enough for publication. I’ll state them here below:
GENERAL COMMENTS
The abstract is not clear. The author begins with urban sustainability and then moves to food waste, innovation and eventually to green-tech companies without linking the aspects together in a clear, concise and linear way.
A clear goal of the study and its scientific contribution are not explained.
The type of study is not specified. Is it a literature review?
The field of research seems to be food waste in urban areas but in the introduction many other sectors are mentioned without any specific reason. Also innovation is mentioned. All of this has no clear place in the manuscript. My suggestion is: start with a general overview then focus only on ONE specific field/topic/problem. The abstract reflects perfectly the confusion of the manuscript
Results of the study are not presented in the abstract.
There are two styles of citation in the text. Sustainability has a specific citation style.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
[28-30] The author does not mention geopolitical factors. In the majority of cases, we do not have a physical scarcity of the resource, but a national monopoly that controls the resource and makes it inaccessible to others. Many recent papers are available. Also, which resources are we referring to? Resources are too diverse. Are talking about nitrogen and phosphorus in agriculture or lithium for batteries? Examples can help the reader to understand the spectrum of differences when we talk about resource availability.
[30] What does too many mean? 1000, 1.000.000, 90% of all the economy output? It’s a scientific paper, not a newspaper article.
[30] Are we talking about food waste or polluting products? Which products?
[35-36] What’s the difference between a circular business model and better waste management? Too many things are implied with such generic sentences.
[41] We are talking about resource scarcity and suddenly, in the same paragraph, we jump to skilled-workers scarcity. The transition between a topic and another must be done in a better way.
[54] Are we sure that is circular economy promoting “smart planning of agricultural land by creating GIS mapping that shows the types of crops 55 being grown and the number of hectares of land being used for each”?
A better statement would be “Applied to agricultural practices, the CE stimulates the adoption of technologies such as GIS mapping, which facilitates the monitoring and management of … [REFERENCE].“
[58] “The contemporary debate in terms of the reuse of waste materials is very broad.” We moved back to waste management. Also, are we talking about food waste or waste in general? At this point of the introduction I am still not sure on what the author wants to focus on.
[63] “However, there is still a skills gap in this sector.” We moved back to lack of skilled-workforce.
[68-70] “Can innovation in cities and societies be created through the circular economy and the transformation of food by-products? Can this also be done in Southern Europe? What kind of impacts can be achieved?”
How are we going to answer to these questions? What is the methodology, in short?
[71-101] Moved back to describing a generic situation. The goal of the study should be described at the end of the introduction as a primer for the methodology that will be described in the following section.
[107] We have already talked about resource scarcity and waste at the beginning of the previous chapter. There are a lot of repetitions that add volume. A scientific paper must be concise and clear. Do not need to repeat facts several times.
[126] The provided definition of CE is missing the main characteristic which is retaining the intrinsic value of matter and products as long as possible in the economic cycle.
[154] greenhouse gas emissions, not CO2 emissions. There’s not only CO2 when we talk about climate mitigation.
Tables at page 8, 9 10 are upside-down, impossible to read them.
[433] This is probably the only interesting novelty of the paper. I would expand and focus on these results only, while skimming down all the rest as introduction to the study. The previous ones are not results, are just a comment of previous studies or business case studies.
Author Response
Point 1: The abstract is not clear. The author begins with urban sustainability and then moves to food waste, innovation and eventually to green-tech companies without linking the aspects together in a clear, concise and linear way.
A clear goal of the study and its scientific contribution are not explained.
The type of study is not specified. Is it a literature review?
The field of research seems to be food waste in urban areas but in the introduction many other sectors are mentioned without any specific reason. Also innovation is mentioned. All of this has no clear place in the manuscript. My suggestion is: start with a general overview then focus only on ONE specific field/topic/problem. The abstract reflects perfectly the confusion of the manuscript.
Results of the study are not presented in the abstract.
There are two styles of citation in the text. Sustainability has aspecific citation style.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. It was helpful to clarify and structure the document better, highlighting the goal and the general and specific topics. The text was enriched accordingly and the abstract was better written.
Point 2: [28-30] The author does not mention geopolitical factors. In the majority of cases, we do not have a physical scarcity of the resource, but a national monopoly that controls the resource and makes it inaccessible to others. Many recent papers are available. Also, which resources are we referring to? Resources are too diverse. Are talking about nitrogen and phosphorus in agriculture or lithium for batteries? Examples can help the reader to understand the spectrum of differences when we talk about resource availability.
Response 2: The text has been changed to focus on the main topic of the paper: circular economy as a general topic, and food waste and food by-product recycling as the specific focus of the research.
Point 3: [30] What does too many mean? 1000, 1.000.000, 90% of all the economy output? It’s a scientific paper, not a newspaper article. Are we talking about food waste or polluting products? Which products?
Response 3: I agree with the comment and the text has been edited and written more precisely.
Point 4: [35-36] What’s the difference between a circular business model and better waste management? Too many things are implied with such generic sentences.
Response 4: The text has been modified and made clearer.
Point 5: We are talking about resource scarcity and suddenly, in the same paragraph, we jump to skilled-workers scarcity. The transition between a topic and another must be done in a better way.
Response 5: The text was structured and written more precisely.
Point 6: [54] Are we sure that is circular economy promoting “smartplanning of agricultural land by creating GIS mapping that shows the types of crops 55 being grown and the number of hectares ofland being used for each”?
A better statement would be “Applied to agricultural practices, the CE stimulates the adoption of technologies such as GIS mapping, which facilitates the monitoring and management of …[REFERENCE].“
Response 6: The text has been modified.
Point 7: [58] “The contemporary debate in terms of the reuse of waste materials is very broad.” We moved back to waste management. Also, are we talking about food waste or waste in general? At this point of the introduction I am still not sure on what the author wants to focus on.
Response 7: The text has been changed accordingly and clarified.
Point 8: [63] “However, there is still a skills gap in this sector.” We moved back to lack of skilled-workforce.
Response 8: The text has been restructured to improve the logical sequence of topics.
Point 9: [68-70] “Can innovation in cities and societies be created through the circular economy and the transformation of food by-products? Can this also be done in Southern Europe? What kind of impacts can be achieved?” How are we going to answer to these questions? What is the methodology, in short?
Response 9: The text has been changed to focus on the real question of this research: What are the regional implications of Greentech companies and social enterprises in the food waste sector? To answer this question, a community impact analysis and an analysis of current and potential impacts in regional development were carried out.
Point 10: [71-101] Moved back to describing a generic situation. The goal of the study should be described at the end of the introduction as a primer for the methodology that will be described in the following section.
Response 10: Thank you for this suggestion. I have merged the two sections and made the paragraph clearer and more precise.
Point 11: [107] We have already talked about resource scarcity and waste at the beginning of the previous chapter. There are a lot of repetitions that add volume. A scientific paper must be concise and clear. Do not need to repeat facts several times.
Response 11: The text has been modified according to the suggestion made.
Point 12: [126] The provided definition of CE is missing the main characteristic which is retaining the intrinsic value of matter and products as long as possible in the economic cycle.
Response 12: The suggested aspect has been included in the paragraph.
Point 13: [154] greenhouse gas emissions, not CO2 emissions. There’s not only CO2 when we talk about climate mitigation. Tables at page 8, 9 10 are upside-down, impossible to read them.
Response 13: I agree with your comment, however, I would suggest keeping it because this is what it is stated in the websites of the GreenTech that are the subject of this study. Nevertheless, I have modified the text specifying this information. Tables have been modified and made more readable.
Point 14: [433] This is probably the only interesting novelty of the paper. I would expand and focus on these results only, while skimming down all the rest as introduction to the study. The previous ones are not results, are just a comment of previous studies or business case studies.
Response 14: Thank you for your comment. I expanded this section and discussed it in more detail. I moved the paragraph “Circular economy and food by-products in Europe” in the introduction, as suggested. However, the paragraph “Circular Economy in Southern Europe” introduces the topic of the two case studies selected in this research. It is the result of a comparative analysis on the GreenTech companies in Southern Europe and the outcome of a qualitative research methodology, with semi-structured interviews carried out on the two case studies in the Sicily region. Therefore, I would keep my position for the reasons mentioned above.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a valuable article analyzed international progress on circular economy innovation. However, three clarifications:
1. Abstract needs to be reorganized for better readability
2. It is recommended to add a short paragraph at the end of the introduction section that summarizes the entire study.
3. The direction of Figure 1 and Table 1 need to be adjusted.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract needs to be reorganized for better readability
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The abstract has been written more precisely clarifying the novelty of this study, the research gap and the main results.
Point 2: It is recommended to add a short paragraph at the end of the introduction section that summarizes the entire study.
Response 2: The text has been changed accordingly.
Point 3: The direction of Figure 1 and Table 1 need to be adjusted.
Response 3: The table has been corrected and changed. For a better view of the symbols in the map, I would prefer to keep Figure 1 in a vertical direction, so that it occupies the entire page.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article fits perfectly into the current trends related to bioeconomics and circular economy. I evaluate the literature review positively. The method was properly planned and clearly presented. Both the discussion and presentation of the results as well as the conclusions were adequately presented.
One comment: In row 311 there is something wrong with the table. It can not be read well.
Author Response
Point 1: The article fits perfectly into the current trends related to bioeconomics and circular economy. I evaluate the literature review positively. The method was properly planned and clearly presented. Both the discussion and presentation of the results as well as the conclusions were adequately presented.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this kind and accurate comment.
Point 2: In row 311 there is something wrong with thetable. It can not be read well.
Response 2: The table has been corrected and changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The suggestions are in the attachment file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The article provides a detailed description of the economic, social, local, regional or even international advantages and disadvantages, of the presence of some companies that value by-products from agriculture or food chain, through its transformation into valuable materials, going in line with the principles of the circular economy.
The manuscript is very well written and is very easy to read. The contents are covered clearly and pratcial examples are presented.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this kind and accurate comment.
Point 2: On the introduction the author reported that “ a GIS mapping will be presented concerning the variety of crops growing in different parts of the counties or in Europe”. From my point of view, there is a lack of a figure that contains this information.
Or the author must revise this sentence
Response 2: The text has been changed accordingly.
Point 3: Concerning the references all long the text, the authors don’t need to add twice.
The authors must choose include the authors names ou the reference number from the reference section. Also on the text, the “et AL.”don’t need to be with a capital letter.
Response 3: The table has been corrected and changed.
Point 4: Line 156 - On this sentence the end is missing “A large and growing body of literature has investigated the waste cycle and innovative models of production reuse this”
Response 4: The text has been changed.
Point 5: Line 177 – the references [41-44-45], it means the references start on 41 and ends on 45. The author must check the references all along the text.
Response 5: The text has been changed accordingly.
Point 6: Line 406 – Some abbreviation needs an explanaition, as an example “CSR”.
Response 6: Thank you for this suggestion. The requested information has been added.
Point 7: Line 503 – the authors must check the sentence.
Response 7: The text has been changed accordingly.
Point 8: A conclusion must include the authors conclusion and not a compilation of the conclusions of different authors. The conclusion is too long.
Response 8: Thank you for this suggestion. The conclusion has been written in more concise and linear way.
Point 9: Line 537 – please check the author name.
Response 9: The text has been changed accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
It has been interesting to read the article "Innovation towards a circular economy in European cities and societies". However, at this moment, there are many aspects of content and structure that are not clear and, therefore, make it difficult to evaluate.
Consequently, I consider that this article requires a revision. I detail the following suggestions in order to improve it.
1. From my point of view the title of the article does not fit the content. The article analyses some examples of circular economy strategies from food by-products transformation. The topic of innovation, as a research topic, is not worked on.
2. Moreover, the introduction and the 1.2 section are very repetitive. It is not well explained what the previous literature related to the topic of the article exists and what the gap identified in the literature which justifies the need of doing this study is.
3. The format of Table 1 is incorrect.
4. With respect to the analysis of the impact on the community, it is not clear in the text on the basis of what quantitative and/or qualitative criteria it was decided how many bullets should be marked in Figure 2. Nor who decided it? If they were decided solely by the authors of the article or whether were carried out among a group of experts.
5. From my point of view, in this moment the article is more of a narrative text than a research study. For the text could be considered as an research article, the authors should justify the study (what is the novelty of this study, what gap in the literature does it cover and why is it relevant to do so) and then, highlight the research and practical implications of its results.
Author Response
Point 1: From my point of view the title of the article does not fit the content. The article analyses some examples of circular economy strategies from food by-products transformation. The topic of innovation, as a research topic, is not worked on.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. It was helpful to think about how to make the topic of this research clearer. I have enriched the text by clarifying the objective of the article. The title has been changed according to the suggestions made.
Point 2: Moreover, the introduction and the 1.2 section are very repetitive. It is not well explained what the previous literature related to the topic of the article exists and what the gap identified in the literature which justifies the need of doing this study is.
Response 2: Sections Introduction and 1.2 have been written more concisely and precisely. The text has also been enriched and gaps in the literature have been highlighted.
Point 3: The format of Table 1 is incorrect.
Response 3: The table has been corrected and changed.
Point 4: With respect to the analysis of the impact on the community, it is not clear in the text on the basis of what quantitative and/or qualitative criteria it was decided how many bullets should be marked in Figure 2. Nor who decided it? If they were decided solely by the authors of the article or whetherwere carried out among a group of experts.
Response 4: The text has been changed and the information required have been added. The impacts assessment of the Community Impact Analysis was developed qualitatively by the author, verifying the positive and negative impacts in the short, medium and long term.
Point 5: From my point of view, in this moment the article is more of a narrative text than a research study. For the text could be considered as an research article, the authors should justify the study (what is the novelty of this study, what gap in the literature does it cover and why is it relevant to do so) and then, highlight the research and practical implications of its results.
Response 5: Thank you for the comment. It was helpful to structure the article more clearly, pointing out the novelty of this study, the gap in the literature and the implications of the results. The text has been enriched accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the quality of the manuscript has improved significantly from the first draft. It is more concise and follows a clearer structure. Conclusions are ok. I suggest some last changes before it being ready for publication.
1. Add the term food in the title. It must be clear form the title that we are talking about a circular food economy.
2. Sections are not numbered correctly (two section 4, for example)
3. The order of references!!! The first reference of the manuscript is the number [2].
4. The caption of tables goes above the table, not below. Also, tables are formatted in different ways.
5. Overall revision of English grammar and punctuation is recommended.
Author Response
Point 1: The quality of the manuscript has improved significantly from the first draft. It is more concise and follows a clearer structure. Conclusions are ok. I suggest some last changes before it being ready for publication.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. I made the suggested revisions.
Point 2: Add the term food in the title. It must be clear form the title that we are talking about a circular food economy.
Response 2: The new title is: Regional implications of the circular economy and food-GreenTech companies
Point 3: Sections are not numbered correctly (two section 4, for example)
Response 3: Sections headings have been modified.
Point 4: The order of references!!! The first reference of the manuscript is the number [2].
Response 4: The order of references has been changed.
Point 5: The caption of tables goes above the table, not below. Also, tables are formatted in different ways.
Response 5: The tables have been merged, except for Table 1 which is on two pages. The caption has been placed above the tables.
Point 6: Overall revision of English grammar and punctuation is recommended.
Response 6: The text was revised by a native English speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
The article has improved after the changes made. Even so, I think it will need some minor changes before the article can be published:
1. The text needs to be revised, because some parts are repeated. Some section headings are not well placed.
2. The correct use of grammatical punctuation is needed: semicolons, commas, etc.
3. References are out of order.
4. Unify the formatting of the tables.
Author Response
Point 1: The article has improved after the changes made. Even so, I think it will need some minor changes before the article can be published:
The text needs to be revised, because some parts are repeated. Some section headings are not well placed.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The text has been checked again and the section titles have been changed.
Point 2: The correct use of grammatical punctuation is needed: semicolons, commas, etc.
Response 2: The text was revised by a native English speaker.
Point 3: References are out of order.
Response 3: References have been better organised.
Point 4: Unify the formatting of the tables.
Response 4: Tables have been merged. An exception was made for Table 1, which is divided into two pages.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
