Circular Economy: Illusion or First Step towards a Sustainable Economy: A Physico-Economic Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest to answer the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations. 2. Introduction: This section should briefly place the study in a wide context and emphasize why it is relevant carrying out the analysis. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing literature. Moreover, the authors do not provide at the end of the section the description of the paper structure which is very useful for readers. 3. Literature Review: This chapter is important. The authors present a rather modest system of analysis that can be further improved. It would be useful to analyze more and new sources. Only 22 sources are analyzed in the work. In a journal of such a high scientific level as Sustainability, I think there are definitely not enough numbers. I would also suggest finding and analyzing newer years 4. The research methodology seems underdeveloped. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit. 5. Results are not always linked to the methodology. Please define the relationship and relate your finding with the relevant literature. 5. There is no discussion part, it can be developed and made together with the conclusions. 6. Authors should disclose their essential “discoveries”. I would suggest the authors to frame it as a "typical" conclusive section. 7. Please provide literature sources in the text according to requirements, for example [1]; [2] ..... [3-8]. I wish you success in making the corrections 

Author Response

1. Abstract has inappropriate structure: The abstract is completely new written.
2. description of the paper structure which is very useful for readers: is now added at the end of the introduction
3. Literatur Review: there was an update of literature more recent contributions are now added
4. The research methodology seems underdeveloped.  An Appendix is added which provides insight into the theoretical approach, hence the methodology used. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for the manuscript. The research topic is relevant for the journal, it is emphasized that the article deals with a very topical and important topic. Regardless of the importance of the research topic, the article requires major changes.

Comments are listed as follows:

1. The Author is suggested to re-write the abstract to make it more closely aligned with the manuscript title and the key focus of the manuscript. The abstract should contain essential information that convinces editors and readers about the novelty and interesting original findings brought by authors. At the same time, the abstract should have a clear phrase regarding the method of research used and the analysis employed in order to convince from the point of view of the soundness of their own analysis.

2. The aim of the article should be improved, formulated in a clear and lucid way. This is not the case in its current form.

3. The rationale of the study needs to be further substantiated with relevant, supporting literature. What was the major gap in knowledge in the literature?

4. The methodology - Further details and explanations are required.

5. In the literature, you can find many publications dealing with the topic of entropy in a circular economy. The author does not refer to any current research on this subject. The literature review needs much improvement. The presented research background is based on relatively "old literature". The literature review is sketchy.

6. I suggest that point 4 (now conclusions) be changed to a discussion of the results. The conclusions section needs to be supplemented with an indication of the limitations of the research and practical implications. The article does not contain this information in its current form. The conclusions are too general. The results are not clearly shown and interpreted.

All the best as you continue to develop your work!

Author Response

1. The Author is suggested to re-write the abstract: done
2. The aim of the article should be improved, formulated in a clear and lucid way. The paper is completely rewritten.
3. The rationale of the study needs to be further substantiated with relevant, supporting literature. There is a complete update of the literature. new contributions are added.
4. Methodology. there is now an appendix, which explains the theoretical approach
5. I suggest that point 4 (now conclusions) be changed to a discussion of the results: Done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author. Althogh I appreciate your writing and thoughts on circular economy, entrophy, thermodynamics etc., I have to reject your paper as it does not meet the requirements of a scientific paper. Your writting is more philosophical than science-based. The paper would be more fit as a professional paper than scientific. The paper does not follow the necessary structure for a scientific paper. All your references are old with no consideration of up to date contributions.

Author Response

This was a clear rejection. the paper now is completely rewritten and hopefully fulfills your expectations

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I liked the paper. It investigates interesting and little analysed aspects in operational research.

However, it seems "weak" in some parts. In particular, action should be taken in sections 1, 3 and 4.

I invite you to read what I am proposing and to formulate/integrate the deficient parts, highlighting strengths and weaknesses.

recommended references:

Brändström, J., Eriksson, O. How circular is a value chain? Proposing a Material Efficiency Metric to evaluate business models, 2022, Journal of Cleaner Production, 342,13097

Harder, R., Giampietro, M., Smukler, S. Towards a circular nutrient economy. A novel way to analyze the circularity of nutrient flows in food systems, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2021, 172, 105693

Giampietro, M., Funtowicz, S.O. From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy. Environmental Science and Policy, 2020, 109, pp. 64–72

Yan, J., Feng, L., Denisov, A., Steblyanskaya, A., Oosterom, J.-P. Complexity theory for the modern Chinese economy from an information entropy perspective: Modeling of economic efficiency and growth potential PLoS ONE, 2020, 15(3), e0230165; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227206)

Raine, A., Foster, J., Potts, J. The new entropy law and the economic process. Ecological Complexity, 2006, 3(4), pp. 354–360

Jaynes E.T. How should we use entropy in economics, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 1991

Horowitz, Ann R., Horowitz Ira. THE REAL AND ILLUSORY VIRTUES OF ENTROPY-BASED MEASURES FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. Decision Sciences, 1976 - Wiley Online Library. First published: January 1976 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1976.tb00663.x

Author Response

The paper is completely rewritten, a theoretical background is given in an appendix. I had an intense view on more resent literature contributions. There is now an update of literature and your suggestions are gratefully acknowledged.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

The last version of the present paper was read by a native speaker, who works for the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) as translator.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for making changes that I think made the article better. In my opinion, the article still requires some editorial corrections.

Author Response

Thanks for making changes that I think made the article better. In my opinion, the article still requires some editorial corrections.

 The new version of the paper was read by a native speaker, who works for the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) as editor as well as translator.

Reviewer 3 Report

Author claims that the paper has been completely re-written. I stronly disagree, there are some changes, but from my perspective this paper does not meet requirements of a scientific paper.

Author Response

Author claims that the paper has been completely re-written. I stronly disagree, there are some changes, but from my perspective this paper does not meet requirements of a scientific paper.

I published more than 60 articles in top-field journals (in economics and applied mathematics), and I do not understand, why this paper should not satisfy requirements of a scientific paper.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

-