Circular Economy a Footstep toward Net Zero Manufacturing: Critical Success Factors Analysis with Case Illustration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current study's findings imply that implementing circular practices in Indian SMEs could aid in resource management and increase their contribution to a more sustainable and net zero economy. The paper is interesting.
The following points needs to be fixed.
1) At section, 6. Conclusion, Implications, Limitations and Future Research prospects needs to be expanded.
- Conclusions
- Future Research and Implications
2) Improve the image quality of Figure 1. Methodology of study and Fuzzy DEMATEL analysis
3) Well structured introduction
4) Why authors have studied authors have used SWOT (Strength, weakness, opportunity and threat analysis) techniques.
Line no.no. 314-315
5) Check line no. 62-63. It should be meaningful
6) 5.1 Observations from Case study needs to be more crtically analysed.
7) In the abstract, the quantitative outcome of the work is missing. Authors must quantitatively highlight and effectively communicate the outcome of their work.
8)There seems to be a lack of references to pivotal works in the field of net zero manufacturing
9) Refine Title, Avoid short foem like CSF
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving constructive and valuable comments.
Kindly find the point wise reply to comments attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the topic is good. However, the paper is not arranged and justified. It is very poor in terms of content, justification of discussing the problem of study, gap addressed by the study, justifying discussing India and SEMs and DEMATEL. Further, although DEMATEL has many benefits, the authors have not presented them in terms of the objectives, findings, discussion, and implications of the study. Further, most of the figures are not clear. Below are some of the comments. Also, language must be revised.
Abstract:
· List the full words of SEMs, CSFs, and DEMATEL.
· The abstract is poorly written with many grammatical mistakes. Also, it did not describe the work, mainly goals, methodology, and contributions.
· The objectives are not clear, particularly with using DEMATEL.
· The contributions are not mentioned.
Keywords: Must enhance according to utilized tools.
Introduction:
· No relation between lines 31 to 36 and the rest of paragraph.
· Review line 60.
· The problem of study is not presented, particularly with a focus on India and SEMs and using DEMATEL.
· Lines from 73 to 80 need to be reviewed and presented.
· The contributions or importance of th study are not mentioned
Literature Review:
· Some words have been repeated in abstract, introduction, and literature.
· This section is very poor. It has been present the contributions of prior studies to conclude their gaps and address them in your study.
· The section lists CSFs. It must be associated with methodology.
Methodology:
· Figure 1 is not clear.
· Introducing the methodology is not clear. You can deem the work of: "A Phase-Based Roadmap for Proliferating BIM within the Construction Sector Using DEMATEL Technique: Perspectives from Egyptian Practitioners".
· Justify using the analytical techniques.
· Steps of DEMATEL are not arranged and presented well.
Results: Where the section of the results of the study?
Discussion: The results have not been discussed.
Predisposition Analysis: Little information has been presented about this tool. Further, it is belonged to the methodology.
SWOT: You used SWOT without any referring in the abstract, or methodology.
The rest of the paper is not arranged.
Conclusion, Implications, Limitations and Future Research prospects: the content of this section does not reflect the title at all. Each of which must be separated and discussed in details.
Moderate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving constructive and valuable comments.
Kindly find the point wise reply to comments attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript analysis one of the sustainable approaches, which is good fit for the journal. Before publication to the Sustainability journal, the following improvements are required.
1. Make a list of abbreviations used in this study.
2. The abstract needs to be revised and add the numerical findings of the study.
3. The writings need careful revisions, such as in line 63, who stated? Author mentioned [11] stated, which is not correct. Therefore, author need to revise the language errors in the full manuscript.
4. The introduction also needs to revise and add more research gap of the study.
5. Add some information about Fuzzy DEMATEL technique in the introduction section.
6. In the methodology part, the author needs to describe different tables.
7. The result needs to be described more. The author needs to discuss the figure 3 properly and add the proper references of it.
The author need to carefully check the language errors in the full manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving constructive and valuable comments.
Kindly find the point wise reply to comments attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has not been improved. The following comments need to be considered. Further, the authors have to be accurate when describing their work. More importantly, they must address the comments of the previous revision. They have not considered them at all. They have to exert real efforts to improve their paper.
Abstract:
· The abstract has many grammatical mistakes.
Introduction:
· In some cases you use abbreviations such as CE. Then, you list Circular Economy. Please after mentioning the full word, don’t repeat it.
· The sequence of listing the problem of the study is not clear. Suddenly, the authors listed that observation from literature…… This is not a strong point to define the gap of the prior literature. Further, the returns of addressing this gap considering the scholarly based knowledge have not been illustrated. Hence, the importance and contributions of the paper are not sound.
· The authors listed that they use DEMATEL to prioritize, find the influential factors and develop the interrelationship between the CSFs. However, in the abstract none of these contributions/findings have been mentioned. Similarly, they listed in the abstract they used SWOT analysis. However, SWOT analysis has not been presented in the introduction to know its role.
· I can not understand the relationship between the tools and the questions of the study.
Literature Review:
· In some cases you use abbreviations such as CE. Then, you list Circular Economy. Please after mentioning the full word, don’t repeat it.
· This section is very poor. It has been present the contributions of prior studies to conclude their gaps and address them in your study.
· The section lists CSFs. It must be associated with methodology.
Methodology:
· Figure 1 is not clear.
· Introducing the methodology is not clear. You can deem the work of: "A Phase-Based Roadmap for Proliferating BIM within the Construction Sector Using DEMATEL Technique: Perspectives from Egyptian Practitioners".
· Justify using the analytical technique of DEMATEL against ISM, TISM, and AHP. Nothing has been presented regarding this point.
· Justify the experts number.
· Steps of DEMATEL are not arranged and presented well.
Results:
· Major results of DEMATEL and their analysis must be presented in separated section.
· Where is the cause and effect map along with the arrows to show the relationships between the CSFs.
Discussion: Discussion of the results must be presented in separated section.
Predisposition Analysis: Little information has been presented about this tool. Further, it should be related to the methodology.
SWOT: You used SWOT without any referring in the abstract, or methodology.
The rest of the paper is not arranged.
Implications, Limitations and Future Research prospects: The listed Implications, Limitations and Future Research prospects are not sound and suifficent.
Moderate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Kindly find the reply to the comments attached in a separate file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author,
Where did you change the responses? I did not find your changes. In your response letter, you mentioned that you have added a list of abbreviations. However, I did not find it.
I think you need to learn how to write a response letter. Don't take it negatively. When you revise your manuscript, you need to respond to the comments point by point and also mention the page number and line number, where the changes are made.
You mentioned that the changes are yellow-marked in the manuscript. However, I did not find any differences regarding my comments.
I am really sorry, I can not accept your manuscript. You need to revise it properly.
The author needs to carefully check the language errors in the full manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Kindly find attached the reply to comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors replay on the comments of the first review. They did not replay on the comments of the second review. They waste the time and efforts.
Moderate.
Author Response
Authors are sorry for inconvenience to reviewer. Old comments file was uploaded by mistake.
Thank you for giving a chance to improve the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for your careful revision. It can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Authors are highly thankful to the reviewer for accepting the corrections and manuscript.
All Authors are highly obliged by your efforts.
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
Please consider the comments below. Response on a step-by-step basis the comments. Please don’t waste the time and efforts of the reviewers.
Abstract:
· The abstract has several grammatical mistakes.
Introduction:
· The sequence of the data and the paragraphs of this section is very poor.
· The sequence of listing the problem of the study is not clear. Suddenly, the authors listed that observation from literature…… This is not a strong point to define the gap of the prior literature. Further, the returns of addressing this gap considering the scholarly based knowledge have not been illustrated. Hence, the importance and contributions of the paper are not sound.
· I can not understand the relationship between the tools and the questions of the study.
Literature Review:
· This section is very poor. It has not presented the contributions of prior studies to conclude their gaps and address them in your study.
Methodology:
· Figure 1 is not clear.
· Justify using the analytical technique of DEMATEL against ISM, TISM, and AHP. The listed justification is not sound in terms of scale.
· Steps of DEMATEL are not arranged and presented well.
· Predisposition Analysis: Little information has been presented about this tool.
Results:
· Major results of DEMATEL and their analysis must be presented in separated section.
· Where is the cause and effect map along with the arrows to show the relationships between the CSFs. If this is related to Figure 4, It is not clear.
Discussion: Discuss in details the results considering the found peer works. Not list the findings and stay that the authors observed.
Predisposition Analysis: Little information has been presented about this tool.
The rest of the paper is not arranged.
Implications, Limitations and Future Research prospects: The listed Implications, Limitations and Future Research prospects are not sound and insufficient.
Moderate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Authors are thankful to you for your valuable comments for improving the manuscript. Also thankful to the time and pain taken by you in reviewing our manuscript.
Point wise reply to reviewer comments is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 5
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer provides considerable efforts to improve the paper. However, the authors did not want to improve their paper. Most of the comments have not been addressed. As a significant note, the authors listed in the prior revisions many paragraphs without references, mainly in the discussion. Now, the same paragraphs have been ended with references. See lines 412, 414, 419, 428, 431, 434, 454. What this means?. The paper has several grammatical mistakes.
· The paper is poorly presented, including all of its sections.
· The Literature review is very poor. It has not presented the contributions of prior studies to conclude their gaps and address them in your study.
· Figure 1 is not clear.
· Justify using the analytical technique of DEMATEL against ISM, TISM, and AHP. The listed justification needs a good academic language.
· Steps of DEMATEL as a methodology are not arranged and presented well. The mentioned steps must be explained.
· Predisposition Analysis: Little information has been presented about this tool.
· Discussion: Discuss in details the results considering the found peer works. Not list the findings and stay that the authors observed.
Moderate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Authors appreciate your hard work for reviewing the current manuscript. The point wise reply to reviewer comments is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 6
Reviewer 2 Report
Language is poor
Review section is poor
Moderate
