“Waste Is Wealth”: Circular Economy Strategies from Media Persuasion to Utilization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author's study explores the impact of promoting sustainability in Thailand's waste management by surveying the attitudes and behaviour of residents in rural and urban communities, regarding waste management and disposal, particularly regarding plastic waste. The topic seems to be interesting, the way data is presented requires better organization to become readable.
Some specific comments:
1. Incorrect way of the use of references; please check author guidelines or other publications of this journal, some examples below:
Line 44- 46
Many scholars such as Miranda et al.; Park; Kurniawan et. al.; Nazari., et al. and Yamakawa & Ueta [6-10] indicated that variable charging (VC) programs such as Pay-As-You-45 Throw (PAYT) and VWF are noted for their effectiveness in waste reduction.
Line 417-421
Scholarly discourse on these topics has been extensively explored by Levänen & Hukkinen; Levänen; Murray et al.; Nguyen et al.; Gwada et al.; Limon & Villarino; Morrow et al. and Roche Cerasi et al. [4,15-21], encompassing a broad array of perspectives sourced 419 from diverse geographical regions, including but not limited to the European Union, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Indonesia.
Line 189-192
The 3R’s concept is often promoted academically and the language used is of an academic style. There are still problems that remain after the disposal of waste material. In the case of plastics, the waste material takes a long time to break down and releases dangerous chemicals into the environment. (W. Li, S.A., et al 20210) [13] Other forms of waste…
2. Explain 3R policy when it appears for the first time
3. The method of marking values in the text and tables requires standardization – 0.0… or .0…
4. This is the first time I have seen such a way of marking that it was done by the author: for example in “Table 1: Analysis of rhetorical contents of sampled media. Table 1 author’s own.”, the same in other figures, tables.
5. Some tables are not prepared following the journal's guidelines, e.g. Table 2.
6. Fig. 3 is not readable, it is completely impossible to see what is written in the particular parts.
7. The Conclusion lacks specific data resulting from the research.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe summary:
We consider that it should be structured with a scientific logic that should clearly and specifically include the sections of:
A-Introduction to the problem investigated;
B-Objectives pursued;
C-Sample on which the investigation is being conducted;
D-Most relevant conclusion.
The introduction:
Grounded and related to the problem investigated. The quotes are current and relevant to the problem analyzed.
Methodology:
Clear and understandable. The method is well specified in its different elements, however, it is convenient to organize it well in terms of the logical scientific aspects that constitute the methodology, namely: method, design, procedure, sampling that must include the characteristics of the sample, instrument that It should be further specified, describing the categories that make up the questionnaire. With respect to the results, it is necessary to establish a script that corresponds to the verified hypotheses and organizing the information with the results tables, even making use of a graph.
Discussion:
The discussion is appropriate to the results of the study, relating these to other works obtained by other authors.
Conclusions:
They are well justified, since they are supported by the evidence of the findings obtained in the work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe report is assessed as containing valuable content with regard to the circular economy, focusing on the awareness of the population and the way they are informed. However, some results are not clear.
Figure 1 : Is the diagram appropriately drawn? What does the vertical axis represent? Is the legend in the correct position?
Table 4: Please check whether the table is appropriate for writing as there are many blank spaces.
Figure 3: Text is small and difficult to read.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled "Waste is Wealth”: from Media Persuasion Circular Economy Strategies to Utilization" pointing out an important issue and is interesting. A study based on information collected through 403 participants. There are some specific comments please refer to them and revise the text accordingly.
1. Check the statement "wealth is gold" isn't is "waste is gold"?
2. Change the strategy of 3Rs to 5Rs.
3. Rephrase sentences starting from citation of Table or Figures.
4. Line 209, Delete "Figure 2 authors' own" it is not needed because all the work is authors' own work only mention reproduced work. Check the same throughout for Tables and other Figures.
5. There are several terms with numbers where their position is important to be subscript or superscript. Check throughout such as 5th, K1, K2 and so on.
6. Some headings like "Factors analysis" are not self-explanatory.
7. Contents of figure 3 are not legible.
8. Check References 2, 3, 12, 16, 29, also unify the with respect to inclusion of DOI for all.
9. I would like if the author add a title like "Challenges and their solution". I know some of such points are already discussed in "Conclusion" but the suggested change will make the study more prominent.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate changes are needed
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations for the work presented.
This paper aims to analyze the factors contributing to the gap between the available information in the media regarding the existence of regulations and policies addressing the recycling and reusing of waste, and people’s responses to that information. The topic is pertinent, current, contextually very significant, with the problem well framed and scientifically well elaborated and with pertinent conclusions.
The methodology followed fits well with the typology of the study followed, it is complete, in the sense that it combines different data collection techniques and is presented in such a way that it can be replicated in different contexts, by different researchers. It can be replicated. The presentation, analysis and discussion of data is well prepared and it is clear that there was a considerable effort on the part of the author to improve the way he does it.
The suggestions I present for improvement are minor, and aim to provide the study with a few more features that could make it even more relevant and serve as a reference for future fellow researchers in this area and focus on the conclusions part:
- A final reflection must be made on the contributions of the article to the academic community and the practical community;
- The difficulties and limitations of the present study must be presented;
- Avenues for future research should be identified regarding this topic, which will follow up on the study now presented.
Good luck.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Please put the index at the X axis of Figure 1.
2. Please take out the words 'author's own' from all Tables and Figures. It can be assumed that the Tables and Figures are produced by the authors if there no source (s) of data for the Tables and Figures) is mentioned.
3. In the Abstract section, the main results of the study are missing. There is a lack of consistency of writing the information. This section needs to be rewritten.
4. In the Introduction section, the main problems, or arguments of the current waste management at national and local levels, the importance of the study, the objectives, and the hypothesis (expected change from the study) are missing. In addition, this section provided insufficient information from the literature. This section needs to be enriched.
5. The Materials and Methods section is weakly developed. The biophysical and demographical description of the study area, references of the methods and techniques used in this study are missing. In addition, the description and definition of the various analytical techniques (i.e., Range, Likert scale, EFA etc.) are not clear. This section needs to be improved by following a systematic methodological approach.
6. I wonder about the writing style of the Results section. The section started with writing of non-scientific form. The representation of the results in Table is mysterious (doubling). There is no critical analysis (post hoc analysis for an instance). The results in Table 2 and Table 3 are not understandable. What is the link between Table 1 and Table 2 and Table 3? The values of r of all parameters are < 0.5 (weak influence), and how the authors interpreted the results. Author's own should be deleted from all Tables and Figures if they produced from the study data.
7. The Discussion section needs to be improved by comparing the study results with other similar studies.
8. The Conclusion section needs to be logically developed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageManuscript needs minor editing of the English.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Below there are a few small comments that will improve the quality of the manuscript. After corrections, the article may be accepted for publication.
Explanation of the 3Rs for the first time is given in line 66. Next time in line 186 – remove the explanation, but improve 3R’s into 3Rs.
Line 101 – again instead of 3Rs’ should be 3Rs? Moreover, explain the 5Rs in this line, this was given in 511 line, but in line 101 is given for the first time.
In the reference, there is a lack of data on the accession, please fulfill that.
22. European Commission Joint Research Centre; Dri, M.; Canfora, P.; Antonopoulos, I. Best environmental management practice for the waste management sector: learning from frontrunners. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/50247. (accessed on ...
In the conclusion, the author added some subtitles:
“Challenges and their Solutions”, “Limitations of this study” “Recommendations for further research” I do not think they are needed. Only leave the paragraphs.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have incorporated most of the suggested changes however, there are still several revisions in the file. Some of the specific statements are given hereunder.
1. Please check the statements, “post-consumer plastic waste, …. or Post-consumption…..”, “Various solutions have been shown ............ or Various solutions have been proposed……..”
2. Check the sentence “……as alluded to in [12] as……”; “presented in [27]….”; “as the study was completes in a matter of months.”
3. Define the abbreviation at its first mention only, there is no need to repeat it several times. Such as 3Rs (Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle) also please follow the set protocol like, Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle (3Rs) not 3Rs (Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageVery minor fixings
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, according to the nature of this study - there should be no sub-heading in the 'Conclusion' section. The authors could generalize the text of the conclusion section with highlighting the main challenges, possible solutions, limitations and future applicability of the findings of the research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish of this manuscript is fine to me.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
