The Environmental Footprint of Scientific Research: Proposals and Actions to Increase Sustainability and Traceability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results of the presented research are valuable to scientific community. However, before publication there are several aspects that should be addressed to provide readers with a better understanding of pertinent details used in this study and increase the value of the final conclusions:

1.      Is there any comparatives methods with the schematic method proposed?

2.      The waste of laboratories can be recycled by many methods, cite some references.

3.      Is your new method is applied on real cases?

4.      Is your new label (S-Paper to T-Plant) is commercialized?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results of the presented research are valuable to scientific community. However, before publication there are several aspects that should be addressed to provide readers with a better understanding of pertinent details used in this study and increase the value of the final conclusions:

1. Is there any comparatives methods with the schematic method proposed?

In the literature, some other comparative methods are present to compensate and mitigate CO₂ eq. produced and forestation, but they do not consider the opportunity to combine the traceability between primitive manuscript and final plants introduced on the soil, with QR code (pdf, video, etc.) useful to add great information’s.

2. The waste of laboratories can be recycled by many methods, cite some references.

The waste of scientific laboratories (i.e., chemical, biological…) are not “common” waste including generally several residual compounds and chemical-biological after their manly and primary use; they are classified as hazardous waste according to safety standards and do not adequate to be recycled.

3. Is your new method is applied on real cases?

YES, our method, after case study reported in this paper in evaluation, is under planning for a new Green Park as CO₂ eq. compensation for papers published in 2023 by all people working at Department of Bioscience, University of Molise, Italy.

4. Is your new label (S-Paper to T-Plant) is commercialized?

The new label (S-Paper to T-Plant) was optimised and a patent was applied for.

The final text of the manuscript underwent a revision by Languages Editing Service MDPI – “Specialist” level. MDPI english-edited-61322.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments: Environmental Footprint of Scientific Research: Proposals and Actions to Increase Sustainability and Traceability

I have read the above-titled manuscript with great interest as it reflects a great scope and readability for advancing future research and policy insights. Here I report my assessment section-wise>:

Abstract: It needs revisit as there are both grammatical and structural/contextual issues starting right from the first sentence as well as the last sentence (for example 'we proposed' at the end of the sentence). In addition, it does not clearly state the objective as well as a clear cut method in addition being unable to spell out some key findings.

Introduction: Here again I find a syntextual issue 'that working'. the first sub-section only gives a reference to one study while the last paragraph is highly misplaced reading 'Trees reduce emissions, protect the soil, improve air quality and the live ability of places, and in the fight against global warming, they play a fundamental role; in fact, without the contribution of forests it will be impossible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, the goal of the Paris Agreement 2022.' The second sub-section, however, is nicely built and supported by literature although with some paragraphs disjointed/having little connection, for example the one highlighting carbon footprints of a PhD. Again, the first sentence of 1.3 does not have 'is' in it, as I think. Nevertheless, the objectives are clearly presented and well-thought out with having a clear connection with the background of the study.

Methods:

Authors developed and applied two methodological frameworks for assessing CO2 eq. emissions in two contexts: laboratory activities and conferences. The 5-step analytical framework is highly intuitive and well-suited with clear insights especially related to applied research while the 4-step process in relation to conference too seems appropriate.

Results: 

This section gives a clear picture of the work and many findings are novel and interesting. I got a little stuck at social cost in table 4 as no background is given.

Discussion:

It is very interesting and provides clear justification of the findings and present novelty in clear context

Conclusion: 

This section needs a major revisit as it only portray the summary as like abstract without proposing future research insights and/or dimensions of similar research along with the limitations encountered if any by this work.

Author Response

Comments: Environmental Footprint of Scientific Research: Proposals and Actions to Increase Sustainability and Traceability

I have read the above-titled manuscript with great interest as it reflects a great scope and readability for advancing future research and policy insights. Here I report my assessment section-wise>:

We are very grateful for the revision work and the positive notes provided. The final text of the manuscript underwent a revision by Languages Editing Service MDPI – “Specialist” level. MDPI english-edited-61322.

Abstract: It needs revisit as there are both grammatical and structural/contextual issues starting right from the first sentence as well as the last sentence (for example 'we proposed' at the end of the sentence). In addition, it does not clearly state the objective as well as a clear cut method in addition being unable to spell out some key findings.

We are very grateful for the revision work and suggestions provided. The abstract section is now undergoing a thorough grammatical as well as structural/contextual revision. The objective, protocol and main results have been reformulated.

Introduction: Here again I find a syntextual issue 'that working'. the first sub-section only gives a reference to one study while the last paragraph is highly misplaced reading 'Trees reduce emissions, protect the soil, improve air quality and the live ability of places, and in the fight against global warming, they play a fundamental role; in fact, without the contribution of forests it will be impossible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, the goal of the Paris Agreement 2022.' The second sub-section, however, is nicely built and supported by literature although with some paragraphs disjointed/having little connection, for example the one highlighting carbon footprints of a PhD. Again, the first sentence of 1.3 does not have 'is' in it, as I think. Nevertheless, the objectives are clearly presented and well-thought out with having a clear connection with the background of the study.

We are in full agreement with what has been pointed out. All suggestions have been considered.

Methods: Authors developed and applied two methodological frameworks for assessing CO₂ eq. emissions in two contexts: laboratory activities and conferences. The 5-step analytical framework is highly intuitive and well-suited with clear insights especially related to applied research while the 4-step process in relation to conference too seems appropriate.

We are very grateful for the revision work and the positive notes provided.

Results: This section gives a clear picture of the work, and many findings are novel and interesting. I got a little stuck at social cost in table 4 as no background is given.

We are very grateful for the revision work and the positive notes provided. We have considered the shared suggestions.

Discussion: It is very interesting and provides clear justification of the findings and present novelty in clear context.

We are very grateful for the revision work and the positive notes provided.

Conclusion: This section needs a major revisit as it only portray the summary as like abstract without proposing future research insights and/or dimensions of similar research along with the limitations encountered if any by this work.

The Conclusion area has now been completely revised; it no longer appears as a summary, but new insights for future research and actual projects have been introduced, adding advantages and limitations encountered in this work.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

As an idea, this in an interesting article which is proposed here.

However, it really needs to be edited by a native English speaker - line by line.

The Introduction needs to be sharper, and it needs to be clear that the exemplary  focus here in the non-conference examples is [biological] lab-based experimental sciences - though I accept that the principles discussed here are wider.

The data from the multipliers for carbon equivalents often come from quite estimating and imprecise studies; this may not be helped always, but needs to be pointed out: focusing more on the principles and processes rather than (supposedly) detailed numbers.

 

1. The main question addressed by the manuscript appears to be concerned with a process and some [though I think imprecise and only illustrative) methods/methodology to improve the (here it seems applied biology lab and research conference holding) process of conducting, publishing and disseminating research.

2. The topic is or at least should be of significant interest to research funders/research councils, academia/the scientific community, publishers as well as research organisation such as universities due to the declared climate emergency and the deep decarbonisations needed (now and by 2030).

3, the submission appears to be original but needs to be tightened up in focus and rigour. For instance, what guidelines to currently exist by say the Italian research councils and the European Commission that are taken further by the process and methods proposed here. The same goes for publishing platforms, and conference providers. Can the authors based their calculations on more recent data, with a tighter (and case study illustrative) research design set-up?

4. Be even more specific in your case study, and use more recent multiplier data for your calculations for carbon intensity. This would include electricity mix, water consumption, and lab materials.

5. within the limitations pointed to above, the Conclusions are supported.

6.  the references are appropriate but can be built on / expanded. e.g. https://www.rsc.org/globalassets/22-new-perspectives/sustainability/sustainable-labs/sustainable-laboratories-report.pdf; https://www.embl.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/sustainability-strategy-embl-2021.pdf; https://www.tfs-initiative.com/app/uploads/2022/11/TfS_PCF_guidelines_2022-interactif-pages.pdf

7. The Figures and Tables would accordingly be revised , in line with 4. Above

Author Response

As an idea, this in an interesting article which is proposed here. However, it really needs to be edited by a native English speaker - line by line.

We are very grateful for the revision work and the positive notes provided. We really agree on the need for a thorough revision of the text by a native English speaker - line by line. To confirm this, the final text of the manuscript underwent a revision by Languages Editing Service MDPI – “Specialist” level. MDPI english-edited-61322.

The Introduction needs to be sharper, and it needs to be clear that the exemplary focus here in the non-conference examples is [biological] lab-based experimental sciences - though I accept that the principles discussed here are wider.

We are very grateful for the revision work and suggestions provided. The Introduction section is now focused mainly on biological examples [2 cases study] lab-based experimental sciences.

The data from the multipliers for carbon equivalents often come from quite estimating and imprecise studies; this may not be helped always, but needs to be pointed out: focusing more on the principles and processes rather than (supposedly) detailed numbers.

We are very grateful for the revision work and suggestions provided. In the text, we now quote this note, which we endorse. We therefore emphasize the importance of the principles and processes proposed. Finally, the case studies with the calculations made should be considered representative and not exhaustive.......

Reviewer 4 Report

This article raises a very interesting and meaningful topic: environmental footprint of scientific research. Scientific research activities are activities carried out by every scientific research worker every day. However, we do not know what impacts our scientific research activities will have on the environment (even experts who study environmental issues). Based on this background, the authors put forward methods to evaluate the environmental impact of scientific research activities and ways to reduce the environmental impact of scientific research activities. This topic has important scientific and practical value. There are some questions that I hope to discuss with the authors, as follows:

(1)    The writing of the abstract is not as wonderful as the background part. It is suggested that the authors could clearly raise the issue of the environmental impact of scientific research activities, which has been ignored in previous studies.

The introduction of research results is suggested an overall introduction to the methodological framework. The current research results are relatively scattered, and we need to read the full text to get a better understand.

(2)    I like the way the introduction is written. I was shocked when I saw that a doctoral project would produce 21.5t carbon dioxide(eq) emissions.

(3)    Whether "the first, the second..." can be used in Part 2.1, so that each step can be more clearly distinguished.

(4)    I can understand the whole methodological framework. However, in these three cases, different trees were mentioned to reduce carbon emissions, but the authors didn’t elaborate on how to ensure that scientific research activities can plant a corresponding number of trees when they have an environmental impact.

(5)    I am puzzled by some abbreviations in the article, and I am not sure whether these are international abbreviations, such as “USD tC” “DiBt”.

(6)    The discussion on how scientific research activities have environmental impact still needs to be strengthened. In addition, the authors suggest that planting trees can reduce the environmental impact, and more specific measures should be put forward instead of just discussing the role of trees.

Author Response

This article raises a very interesting and meaningful topic: environmental footprint of scientific research. Scientific research activities are activities carried out by every scientific research worker every day. However, we do not know what impacts our scientific research activities will have on the environment (even experts who study environmental issues). Based on this background, the authors put forward methods to evaluate the environmental impact of scientific research activities and ways to reduce the environmental impact of scientific research activities. This topic has important scientific and practical value.

We are very grateful for the revision work and the positive notes provided. The final text of the manuscript underwent a revision by Languages Editing Service MDPI – “Specialist” level. MDPI english-edited-61322.

There are some questions that I hope to discuss with the authors, as follows:

• The writing of the abstract is not as wonderful as the background part. It is suggested that the authors could clearly raise the issue of the environmental impact of scientific research activities, which has been ignored in previous studies.

We agree for the revision work and suggestions provided. The abstract section is now changed. We took up the suggestion and the issue of the environmental impact of scientific research activities ignored in the previous studies.

The introduction of research results is suggested an overall introduction to the methodological framework. The current research results are relatively scattered, and we need to read the full text to get a better understand.

We are grateful for the suggestions provided. The Introduction section is now changed (Two sections: 1.1 Foreword and 1.2 Background). We hope that the content and drafting of this section will help the reader to better understand the context and objectives of the research.

• I like the way the introduction is written. I was shocked when I saw that a doctoral project would produce 21.5t carbon dioxide(eq) emissions.

We are very grateful for the positive notes here provided. We verified the correct data reported by Authors bited by us, on the initial work published

(3) Whether "the first, the second..." can be used in Part 2.1, so that each step can be more clearly distinguished.

We are grateful for the suggestions provided. We adopted it (see lines 180-184).

(4) I can understand the whole methodological framework. However, in these three cases, different trees were mentioned to reduce carbon emissions, but the authors didn’t elaborate on how to ensure that scientific research activities can plant a corresponding number of trees when they have an environmental impact.

We are grateful for the revision work; we agree with the notes provided. We have considered the shared suggestions and in the text, we added more info on how to ensure that scientific research activities can plant a corresponding number of trees when they have an environmental impact. The answer to this question is complex. It includes a proper awareness of how to ensure that scientific research activities can plant a corresponding number of trees when they have an environmental impact. (see lines 363-369).

(5) I am puzzled by some abbreviations in the article, and I am not sure whether these are international abbreviations, such as “USD tC” “DiBt”.

We agree with the notes provided. In the text we changed and/or added information’s): lines 195…

(6) The discussion on how scientific research activities have environmental impact still needs to be strengthened. In addition, the authors suggest that planting trees can reduce the environmental impact, and more specific measures should be put forward instead of just discussing the role of trees.

We fully agree with the notes here provided on the discussion section. In the text we added both how scientific research activities have environmental impact, and with new discussion on more specific measures (over plants and the role of trees). (lines 363-369).

Reviewer 5 Report

Environmental footprint is a scientific academic term.The impact that a business's activities have upon the environment including its resource environment and pollution emissions.Examples: Depletion of natural resources，Noise and aesthetic impacts， Residual air and water emissions， Long-term waste disposal，Uncompensated health effects，Change in the local quality of life.In the existing research, common environmental footprints include water footprint, carbon footprint, etc.The environmental footprint studied by the author of this paper lacks scientific concept.In addition，the author used two article cases published by others to prove his point of view in his writing, and the workload is obviously insufficient.The author does not know the process and detailed data interpretation of the research papers published by others.

Author Response

Environmental footprint is a scientific academic term. The impact that a business's activities have upon the environment including its resource environment and pollution emissions. Examples: Depletion of natural resources，Noise and aesthetic impacts， Residual air and water emissions， Long-term waste disposal，Uncompensated health effects，Change in the local quality of life. In the existing research, common environmental footprints include water footprint, carbon footprint, etc. The environmental footprint studied by the author of this paper lacks scientific concept.

We are grateful for the revision work; we agree with the notes provided concerning that “Environmental footprint is a scientific academic term”. We have considered the opinion that “the environmental footprint studied by the author of this paper lacks scientific concept”. Now, in the text, we added more info and notes furnished by the Review. (See lines 72-79). The final text of the manuscript underwent a revision by Languages Editing Service MDPI – “Specialist” level. MDPI english-edited-61322.

In addition，the author used two article cases published by others to prove his point of view in his writing, and the workload is obviously insufficient. The author does not know the process and detailed data interpretation of the research papers published by others.    ??????

No. Sorry. Here, the Authors here completely disagree with what the Reviewer wrote. The two cases of scientific articles cited were published by the authors themselves and not by others!

The two papers were chosen not at random then but based on direct and in-depth knowledge of the related workloads.

Also, in the case of the Conference, the Corresponding Author (Ranalli et al.) was and is a member of the Scientific Committee of the State of the Art20 event, by IGIIC.

The author (Ranalli G, here corresponding) is therefore familiar in detail with both the process and the detailed interpretation of data from the research and conference articles also published by himself.

Ranalli, G.; Bosch-Roig, P.; Crudele, S.; Rampazzi, L.; Corti, C.; Zanardini, E. Dry Biocleaning of Artwork: An In-novative Methodology for Cultural Heritage Recovery? Microbial Cell 2021, 8, 91–105, doi:10.15698/MIC2021.05.748.

Aquilano, C.; Baccari, L.; Caprari, C.; Divino, F.; Fantasma, F.; Saviano, G.; Ranalli, G. Effects of EOs vs. Antibiotics on E. coli Strains Isolated from Drinking Waters of Grazing Animals in the Upper Molise Region, Italy. Molecules 2022, 27, 8177, doi:10.3390/molecules27238177.

Lo Stato dell’Arte 20 - Atti del XX Congresso Nazionale IGIIC Available online: https://www.nardinieditore.it/prodotto/lo-stato-arte-20-congresso-nazionale-igiic/ (accessed on 17 January 2023).

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has benefitted from experts' comments and now is in a very good shape and structure to be given consideration for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract:

use the Present Tense here:

" ... are suggested".

"We propose ..."

Introduction:

p. 1: Are all activities ...

p. 2 top: it is not really true that "environmental impacts are ignored" ...

For instance for UK Research Councils (UKRI, such as the Natural and Environmental Research Council, impact on soils and biodiversity must be assessed and [ethically, and mitigation-wise] evaluated. carbon emission impacts - you are correct.

p. 6: better grammar is: "The Methodology suggested in Table 2 ..." 

p. 7: better grammar is: "Table 3 reports data base don the same methodology ..."

Conclusion:

"- i.e. two paper and one Conference Proceedings - "