Gifts and Commodities: A Dialectical Thought Experiment for Sublation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The paper is interesting as it deals with a timely topic. Nevertheless, it needs to be improved to become a winning paper. Then, in my opinion, the following comments can help you reach that point:
First of all, please make your abstract attractive to readers (simple sentences without any repetition) and include 2-3 sentences ready to be cited exactly as they are. In 1 paragraph, your abstract should tell the readers why the study is important (maximum 25% of the text), what you did, i.e. your methodology (maximum 25% of the text), and what you found, i.e. main research results and their major implications (50% of the text). This is very important to promote your work because of the growing trend that authors use Google search to find and cite papers based on the abstract (instead of reading the full paper).
What is the specific research stream you have found on Sustainability that can include your contribution? how does the paper push the research forward? please, be more explicit on this issue.
The research gap, theoretical contribution, necessity, and importance are not discussed well.
The sentences are not connected well; therefore, the manuscript lacks enough coherence. I can not follow your storytelling style well. Please read the following manuscript which can help you improve the early draft: Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2020). Simple rules, templates, and heuristics! An attempt to deconstruct the craft of writing an entrepreneurship paper. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 371-390.
You have mentioned neoliberalism throughout the text; Nevertheless, please specify your approach. In some parts, I can see controversies regarding the axioms and assumptions of neoliberalism.
It will be more professional to refer to more reliable resources than the "Merriam-Webster Dictionary".
Please add the reference for Figure 1.
The methodology is missing. Then, the findings might be deviated or misinterpreted. I strongly recommend that the authors use a research method to reach and report the findings. Otherwise, some of the findings might seem to be their own interpretation of reality.
You have mentioned that "Below we provide three scenarios to elicit the meaning of giftized commodity and bring better focus to the obligations attached to it.". It looks like a teaching material. You need to conduct research, even a conceptual one.
Please add references for your critical sentences, e.g. "Individual consumers are increasingly making choices with sustainability in mind". Are you sure? In all countries? In all cases? Are they so much aware?
Compare your findings with those of the others. The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, suggest implications for theory and practice, and, perhaps, develop recommendations for further research in more detail.
Best of luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper but there are some issues that must be addressed before it can be published:
Abstract
1. There are some sentences that are quite complex and may be difficult for some readers to understand. The authors should work on condensing and modifying their phrasing in order to improve the clarity and accessibility of the paper.
2. It may be helpful to identify the target audience for the paper, given the rather technical nature of research topic.
Introduction
1. Clarify the unique contributions of this paper compared to existing literature on the topic.
2. Identify the gap in exiting literature, by arguing what is missing or inadequate in existing solutions and thus your study is necessary. This needs to be briefly noted in Introduction.
Literature Review
1. Please avoid use causal language such as "therefore" unless there is strong evidence to support a causal relationship between sentences. For example, in the paper you provided (“However, use-values are heterogeneous and have different meanings 194 appropriate to a commodity's physical characteristics. Therefore, to exchange commodities in modern marketplaces, various use-values must be translated into a homogeneous means of expression: quantified values [42,43].”).
2. There are areas where the coherence and cohesion between paragraphs could be improved.
3. Please further check and improve the details in your paper. For example, I am curious about the meaning of the “[]” in the following sentence: "A Wogeo Islander said, 'Your fashion is to have food to eat only. We have food both for display and eat. To you, it is one thing; to us, it is two things.' [] (p.89)."
Conclusion
1. The contribution of your study needs to be clearly articulated in this section. The contribution is not clear and need to be stated.
2. There seems to be relatively little engagement with the relevant literature mentioned earlier. It would be beneficial to more clearly demonstrate how this study builds upon and/or diverges from existing research in the field.
3. There are some other small language errors that the authors should check further when revising.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The content of the article is relatively informative, and the authors spend more time reviewing the literature, which deserves recognition. At the same time, this article also made me learn a lot of new knowledge. THX!
However, I think the article needs to be well improved.
The type of article is more focused on review.
The authors review the ideas and theories of many philosophers. It is suggested that the authors compare the similarities and differences between them in more depth and what they have inspired for the study. In addition, while it feels like these elements play a role in constructing a gifted commodity construct, what exactly is a giftized commodity construct? How does it relate to this study? How to respond to sustainability? These are not well stated and explained.
The discussion in Chapter 6 is bold and interesting. However, the relationship between these contents and sustainability is not very close and slightly far-fetched. Moreover, as the authors argue, it may not be possible to validate the new structure they constructed. Then, it is recommended that the authors re-examine the full text in the focus of the purpose of the study and think about how the findings of this study can truly achieve sustainability. The content of chapter six, which may be valid in itself, may not be suitable for this article. As a literature review, it should provide an in-depth, objective and comprehensive review of existing concepts and theories. This is a prerequisite for further future research plans.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
It has been accepted in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you! I hope you enjoy the revised draft!
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting and current paper. The publication is written in a clear and transparent way. The analyzes and conclusions are correct. Recommends the article for publication.
Author Response
Thank you! I hope you enjoy the revised draft!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I am glad to read the revised version. This version is more qualified for publication. But, the paper needs English language editing.
Best of luck!
Author Response
We edited the language. Thank you for your suggestions and for making this paper better!
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Firstly, I maintain that the classification of this paper should be a review rather than an article. Secondly, the authors have commendably rewritten some sections and incorporated additional literature. However, they seem to have inadequately addressed the concerns raised during the previous review. In fact, whether it is Hegel's classical theory or the subject matter explored in other literature, these sources should not be merely enumerated; the authors must provide substantial commentary on them.
Furthermore, the research methodology section necessitates a rewrite, as it should introduce the paper's research approach and specific methods or steps. In other words, the authors need to explain how they will conduct the study. Additionally, while Chapter 5 presents a wealth of content and is, to some extent, acceptable as a discussion and analysis following a literature review, its connection to the research theme remains insufficiently tight.
In other words, these discussions still do not effectively validate or substantiate the feasibility of the new framework proposed by the authors. Consequently, the research conclusions may also require further scrutiny.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript basically responds to the original problems and deficiencies.
