Status and Trends of Membrane Technology for Wastewater Treatment: A Patent Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript entitled “Status and trends of membrane technology for wastewater treatment: a patent analysis”, by Graziela Salvan Cerveira et al., presents an overview of patent activity in membrane separation technology for wastewater treatment. There is a detailed analysis of the patent filings data. I just have one question. Could the authors please find some relevant data to introduce the patented technology commercialization on membrane? Maybe one or two classic cases could give us a better sense of the future on membrane separation.

I think this manuscript presents an interesting topic. Although the analysis of research paper has attracted more attention, the patents are important parts to showing the future of separation membranes. Herein, the authors analyzed the patent filings on membrane technology for wastewater treatment using different keywords, such as the type of membrane separation process, the number, the country of origin, the applicants of patent applications. It presents an overview and reveal the focusing on membrane. Also, I think this work can be improved by introducing more information on patented technology commercialization and more prospects for future development. Moreover, machine learning may be the right tool.
Is the text clear and easy to read?
YES
Is the paper well written?
YES
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
YES, I suggest the authors to add more information on patented technology commercialization.
Do they address the main question posed?
YES

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled: „Status and trends of membrane technology for wastewater treatment: a patent analysis” refers to a review study in which the authors analyze patent applications from 2011 to 2019. I think, that the manuscript is an interesting paper however a lot improvements are necessary.

A list of comments follows:

·       The abstract should more clearly state the purpose of the study and the methodological approach.

·       The authors should state what led to the design of such a study and what was conducted in previous studies that led to it. This should be mentioned in the Introduction section.

·       It is also extremely important to emphasize the novel nature of the review.

·       Among other relevant issues, there is a lack of discussion (despite the nature of the review). The discussion should clearly express the comparison of the obtained results of the patent analysis with the existing knowledge on the subject. It must clearly indicate what is completely new in the analyses presented and in what they differ from the findings of other authors, and in what they coincide with published opinions. The discussion should emphasize anew the open issues and the need to solve them. This is completely missing.

·       Conclusions - The reader should get the real conclusions at the end of the paper. This part is now written as a summary - but what are the conclusions of your patent analyses? Please bullet point the specific conclusions.

 

As for the possibility of publication, of course, after necessary corrections, I leave the decision to the editor (if such a review article is in accordance with the policy of the journal). In my opinion, the authors should look for another journal where review articles are published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have corrected the critical remarks suggested in the review.

The paper is now in better condition than before - the corrections make difference. I recommend the paper for publication in the Sustainability journal.