Traceability Models and Traceability Systems to Accelerate the Transition to a Circular Economy: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title needs revision. The word traceability is redundant, so, you can suppress it, just as a suggestion.

2. Abstract section, the sentences in L13-15 & L24-27 are too long. You can breakdown into multiple sentences.

3. In the introduction section, I suggest adding a paragraph about circular bioeconomy.

4. In conclusion section Line 895-897 needs rewriting.

5. What are the limitations of employing traceability models and systems to link with circular economy?

6. It is appreciated if list of abbreviations are included

Author Response

1. The title needs revision. The word traceability is redundant, so, you can suppress it, just as a suggestion.

Many thanks for the suggestion. We agree that a simpler title would be preferable. We have opted for a title clearly individualizing two of the main dimensions of the systematic review, “traceability models and “traceability systems”, also to facilitate its identification by databases searching mechanisms and web browsers. However, considering that the two strings are now part of the list of keywords, we will accept a decision from the journal regarding the final title.

 

2. Abstract section, the sentences in L13-15 & L24-27 are too long. You can breakdown into multiple sentences.

We have broken down L13-15. As for L24-27, after considering different possibilities, we opted for the full sentence.

 

3. In the introduction section, I suggest adding a paragraph about circular bioeconomy.

We have researched circular bioeconomy when connected to traceability models and systems as part of the exploratory phase of the systematic review but the insufficiency of results led us to exclude the concept from the used queries. Therefore, while acknowledging the interest of the concept to our research, we have decided not to extend the introduction in that direction.

 

4. In conclusion section Line 895-897 needs rewriting.

Many thanks, we agree that clarification is in need.

We have rewritten the beginning of the paragraph and extended it to include relevant information from Discussion (6.1). This has introduced some redundancy between both sections, but this paragraph is intended to convey an important result from our work and its meaning must be clear to the reader.

 

5. What are the limitations of employing traceability models and systems to link with circular economy?

We have not found evidence from the reviewed studies to answer this question. We could report on several challenges and limitations related to the implementation of traceability models and systems but avoided the generalization to circular economy stricto sensu, considering the rigorous methodology followed.

In the revised version, we reformulated the conclusion, to include the following text:

“We conclude that sound research and practice documentation are required to establish evidence and foster the uptake of traceability systems and services by all the stakeholders. We found gaps in all the areas reviewed, signaling great research and innovation opportunities, especially when connected to CE. Circularity brings a new layer to a multi-disciplinary, multi-level and already very complex field, and calls for renewed efforts regarding conceptual approaches and research methods, data and processes modelling, evaluation methodologies, economic and financial modelling, funding models and mechanisms, requirements engineering, development and evaluation of ontologies, development and appraisal of regulations, standards and indicators, a broad spectrum of technological methods and tools. Based on our results, we defend that a deep understanding of the implementation context and of contextual dimensions, including the human factor, is of paramount importance and deserves considerably more research and investment.”

 

6. It is appreciated if list of abbreviations are included.

We have included the list of abbreviations in the revised version.

These abbreviations are part of illustrative lines of text identified and extracted from the included studies and were kept in the same format, but indeed we had some difficulty while reporting. Your suggestion is a perfect solution, many thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest supplementing part Discussion with a conclusion whether there are differences between continents in the approach to CE (e.g. whether research from Europe differs from other research in terms of the issues raised).

The authors should end part Conclusion with an indication of what problems should by addressed in articles on CE.

 

• the article is an overview of previous publications on CE,
• the article is important, taking into account the advancement of research on CE,
• the authors' approach is standard,
• the article adds little to the existing studies, but facilitates the work of subsequent researchers,
• the article is written correctly,
• the conclusions are consistent with the results, but there is no definite summary by the authors.

Author Response

. I suggest supplementing part Discussion with a conclusion whether there are differences between continents in the approach to CE (e.g. whether research from Europe differs from other research in terms of the issues raised).

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the following information in Discussion -> 6.2

“Moreover, we observed more than a decade of investment, and reports from projects addressing the several development stages, including pilots in different countries. However, considering the small number of cases and other peculiarities, we need to be careful when drawing conclusions in this regard. For example, temporal information was generically missing, as we only had access to publication dates, hindering comparisons and conclusions regarding technological options, challenges and limitations involved in implementation, and achievements in different countries.”

 

. The authors should end part Conclusion with an indication of what problems should by addressed in articles on CE.

We have reformulated the conclusion, while trying not to reopen the identified themes and extend even more an already long paper.

 

. The article is an overview of previous publications on CE, the article is important, taking into account the advancement of research on CE, the authors' approach is standard, the article adds little to the existing studies, but facilitates the work of subsequent researchers, the article is written correctly, the conclusions are consistent with the results, but there is no definite summary by the authors.

Many thanks for your comments. Our aim was to provide rigorous evidence-based results regarding key aspects when implementing traceability and to establish an informed baseline. No definite conclusions could be taken, as we explain in the paper and our answer to Reviewer 1 but we do hope it may support further research and practice in the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

see the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you so much for taking the time to read our work and your warm comments on it. They are very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

The authors