Optimisation of the Circular Economy Based on the Resource Circulation Equation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract was well written.

 

Introduction

This part is well written, but the objective was creating a little confusion for presenting the objective without the advantage of both technique and the process of combine both techniques.

 

Review

This part was well written. The part of the concept for improvement of CE was well presented. If it possible it can be included in the introduction.

 

Methods

This part was well written, but the part of caption of table and figure need to be checked and it should be a part of main text.

 

Case study

For the case study, this part was also well written. However, the figure (e.g., Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7) that was presented should be done in better quality and the note for the sign in table 4 is needed.

 

Discussion

This part was well written.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion was also well written.

 

 

For a minor concern, many references in main text have to be checked such as line 29 “planet(Mahroof et al., 2021).” should have a space, line 41 “Ludlow J et al. ( 2021).” should remove the letter J, line 86 “Govindan et al..( 2022)” should remove the duplicated “.”, etc.

Author Response

Please see attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is actually an interesting hat. However, in the case of pouring case studies, it is necessary to emphasize the purpose of the case explicitly and in detail. How to display the design results for programs that have been improved or developed needs to be explained in advance what are the points to be compared. Whether the author's contribution is up to the design for improvement or to the implementation stage. For each outcome displayed after improvement and development, it must be accompanied by success indicators.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The ability to write articles in English is good

Author Response

Please see attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the manuscript.

Kindly find my review as the attached PDF document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is mostly fine.

Mostly editorial gremlins - spaces, etc.

Kindly see my report.

Author Response

Please see attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper presents original and interesting insights. however, both the research questions and the literature gap that the paper attempts to bridge should be better specified in the introduction. The final discussion and conclusions are too concise and do not account for the many results that potentially emerge from the model.
The paper is certainly promising and more attention to these aspects can only elevate it qualitatively. In contrast to the discussion and conclusions, the description of the model is at times redundant and unclear. again, a rewrite is recommended, favouring greater synthesis and giving greater clarity to the text.

Author Response

Please see attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is good in this form