A New Retail Interior Design Education Paradigm for a Circular Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for the revised version of the article.

Now the paper is ready to be published in the journal

Author Response

I understand from the reviewer comments below that the paper does on require any further adjustments and is now accepted for publication.

Thank you for your help and support in this.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

In general, this manuscript covers a very important problem, which is design with regard to the principles of sustainable development and the circular economy. That's why I think this manuscript is interesting and valuable. Also, it is well written.

Below are detailed comments that will help to refine this manuscript.

Line 79: In principle, the scientific purpose of this manuscript is understandable. However, I am skeptical about the concept of "role and understanding of design within a circular economy model as it pertains to the built retail environment". Maybe better justify it as: a more accurate description of the action that is intended to………… Consider this.

Line 87-95. This introduction to the methodology is better suited to support the purpose of the research (described in line 78). Consider moving this passage here.

Line 481: I think you should also mention biocomposite materials. Currently, these biocomposites are often made from plant by-products of the agro-food industry. In addition, such bioplastics can be materials used in many constructions, e.g. construction materials, furniture, utility items, etc. A lot of research is currently being conducted in this field. For the production of modern materials, a variety of products can be produced, e.g. rapeseed pomace, fruit pomace and others. Take a look at the following articles: "The rape pomace and microcrystalline cellulose composites made by press processing", Applications of biocomposite materials based on natural fibers from renewable resources: a review. There is a lot of research on this. It's worth mentioning in the context of your design research.

Line 488: The discussion of the results is a bit poor. I think it should be supported by a bit more scientific publications.

Line 701: Add one more forward-looking request. I'm talking about a more forward-looking conclusion.

Author Response

Line 79: In principle, the scientific purpose of this manuscript is understandable. However, I am skeptical about the concept of "role and understanding of design within a circular economy model as it pertains to the built retail environment". Maybe better justify it as: a more accurate description of the action that is intended to………… Consider this. This has been considered and has been rewritten to try to better reflect the action as suggested.

Line 87-95. This introduction to the methodology is better suited to support the purpose of the research (described in line 78). Consider moving this passage here.  Good point, the passage has been moved as suggested.

Line 481: I think you should also mention biocomposite materials. Currently, these biocomposites are often made from plant by-products of the agro-food industry. In addition, such bioplastics can be materials used in many constructions, e.g. construction materials, furniture, utility items, etc. A lot of research is currently being conducted in this field. For the production of modern materials, a variety of products can be produced, e.g. rapeseed pomace, fruit pomace and others. Take a look at the following articles: "The rape pomace and microcrystalline cellulose composites made by press processing", Applications of biocomposite materials based on natural fibers from renewable resources: a review. There is a lot of research on this. It's worth mentioning in the context of your design research. The references to Biocomposites have been included as suggested. 

Line 488: The discussion of the results is a bit poor. I think it should be supported by a bit more scientific publications. This has been done in relation to the suggestions above, thank you for the suggested readings.

Line 701: Add one more forward-looking request. I'm talking about a more forward-looking conclusion. This has been done as suggested, thank you again for your help and support.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, this article is now properly written and ready for publication. I accept all corrections.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

This is an interesting manuscript that determines the “A new retail interior design education paradigm for a circular economy”. The methods are not novel but are acceptable. It should be noted the correction of several items is necessary in this manuscript. Specially, English language of writing should be modified in the whole of manuscript. Please study the “Guide for Authors” of journal, carefully and correct the manuscript based on the guideline. Moreover literature review is not up to date. You should use appropriate papers for this section such as Data supporting midpoint-weighting life cycle assessment and energy forms of cumulative exergy demand for horticultural crops; Principal of environmental life cycle assessment for medical waste during COVID-19 outbreak to support sustainable development goals; Principle of life cycle assessment and cumulative exergy demand for biodiesel production: Farm-to-Combustion approach.

Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript “A new retail interior design education paradigm for a circular economy” the authors study the concept of circular economy in the underground learning and teaching of interior design students. For this reason, the existing linear process of interior design was first conceptualized and then key design principles were identified and an education paradigm for a circular interior design ecosystem model was finally provided. Overall, the manuscript is interesting as well as the approach that the authors follow, however, the novelty of the manuscript is not highlighted while the sample of the students that the results are based is, from a statistical point of view, too limited to determine the veracity of the hypotheses and draw accurate conclusions. Also, the structure, and possibly the type of the manuscript need some revising. For example, the introduction does not provide sufficient background nor introduces the reader to the problem, while references to the body of knowledge and what the manuscript adds, i.e., its novelty, are missing. Also, the materials and methods section is very broad, including parts that better fit a literature review submission rather than a research paper, while, most importantly, the size of the sample (number of undergraduate students) is very small.

Reviewer 3 Report

Some suggestions to improve the study:

1. Regarding the abstarct. A problem, research methods, results obtained and their theoretical and practical implications are not clear. Please follow to the generally accepted abstract structure.

2. Intro section lacks a discussion of recent impacted studies followed by a clarification of the research gap for present study. Research question\questions are not outlined in the Intro.

3. Although a section on materials and methods is presented, research methods and research design are not clear enough.

4. Results section is missing in the study, please revise the structure following IMRaD format. The discussion section should discuss the results obtained. The conclusions section does not present the study results, please revise.