Waste Management, Waste Indicators and the Relationship with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt would be interesting to list which keywords were used to research the listed platforms and the results of the number of articles returned. Moreover, how the quantity of 500 articles was defined.
Most part of the manuscript is dedicated to discuss how the search was carried out. The suggestion is to present that in a concise approach and focus on the findings of the literature review.
The authors mentioned a vast number of documents and a full reading of only 30. This is not a typical approach for a review paper dedicated for a state of the art assessment. The methodology and criteria to select 30 papers for full reading based on 100 abstract must be detailed in full.
The authors cite only 30 documents throughout the document, but listed 103 references. This is a major issue for a review paper. Moreover, the method for citation is completely mixed. There are points of numerical citation and nominal citation spread without criteria.
The tables are associated with a document which is a presentation. This is completely inadequate for a review paper. The authors have access to more solid literature, based on scientific publishing to support their findings. For the 30 cited documents in text, more than 10 are not papers.
The provided figures are meaningless to the state of the art review.
Author Response
Comment 1: It would be interesting to list which keywords were used to research the listed platforms and the results of the number of articles returned. Moreover, how the quantity of 500 articles was defined.
Response 1: Thank you so much for pointing this out. The keywords used for the search in the first step are now mentioned in the revised draft, in the section “Scope of Review and Methodological approach”, the keywords used at the first stage are mentioned in the first bullet point. The keywords for further search and the quantity of articles are defined further in the same section at the third bullet point. Meanwhile, we have revised this part based on your comments and comments from other reviewers.
Comment 2: Most part of the manuscript is dedicated to discuss how the search was carried out. The suggestion is to present that in a concise approach and focus on the findings of the literature review.
Response 2: This comment is really helpful, we have checked the draft and reviewed it. The structured review in our paper has followed the PRISMA model for Search Inclusion and Exclusion Strategy / Step followed for search, the method required dedicating a specific section to the method and mentioning different parts in detail, so following the method we have dedicated a part of the manuscript to this. The next section is fully based on the findings of the literature review.
Comment 3: The authors mentioned a vast number of documents and a full reading of only 30. This is not a typical approach for a review paper dedicated for a state of the art assessment. The methodology and criteria to select 30 papers for full reading based on 100 abstract must be detailed in full.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the “Scope of Review and Methodological Approach” based on your comments now.
Comment 4: The authors cite only 30 documents throughout the document, but listed 103 references. This is a major issue for a review paper. Moreover, the method for citation is completely mixed. There are points of numerical citation and nominal citation spread without criteria.
Response 4: Yes, there are more references than the documents reviewed because the sections other than the results of the review have different sources of information used in the draft, so the references are from the whole draft while the section dedicated to thematic results has resulted from the 30 reviewed articles. We have checked the citation method and revised the parts having issues.
Comment 5: The tables are associated with a document which is a presentation. This is completely inadequate for a review paper. The authors have access to more solid literature, based on scientific publishing to support their findings. For the 30 cited documents in text, more than 10 are not papers.
Response 5: The tables support the argument to make it stronger and also show the strong relationship between waste management and SDGs by showing the specific goals of SDGs which deal with waste management. But we agree, based on your comments we have removed the tables and discussed the information in descriptive parts.
For the 30 cited documents, there are few research reports and most are papers, the data sources from reports are taken and reviewed because those are stronger sources to make the arguments strong, the reason is the nature of the topic. There is a lot of information about SDGs in sources which are not papers but other sources, so those are considered for review in this paper.
Comment 6: The provided figures are meaningless to the state of the art review.
Response 6: The figures are provided as needed by the method, the figures can be removed or revised if the method of this literature review allows, and can be checked if further suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellent literature review.
1) The methodology is very well explained and analyzed. The target group of the papers under investigation is clear and relevant to the overall work.
2) The idea to co-relate SDGs and waste management is interesting and rather original.
3) The analysis of the selected papers is focused and presented in a structured way by excluding unnecessary details.
4) The review concludes with extensive suggestions on future research, a part of significant importance for every researcher on this topic.
Moreover, the language is fluent and not strictly academic, which makes reading of the review rather pleasant. It could be published as it is.
Author Response
This is an excellent literature review.
Thank you for appreciating the work.
Comment 1: The methodology is very well explained and analyzed. The target group of the papers under investigation is clear and relevant to the overall work.
Response 1: Thank you so much for appreciating the words for the draft.
Comment 2: The idea to co-relate SDGs and waste management is interesting and rather original.
Response 2: Thank you so much for appreciating the words for the draft.
Comment 3: The analysis of the selected papers is focused and presented in a structured way by excluding unnecessary details.
Response 3: Thank you so much for appreciating the words for the draft.
Comment 4: The review concludes with extensive suggestions on future research, a part of significant importance for every researcher on this topic.
Response 4: Thank you so much for appreciating the words for the draft.
Moreover, the language is fluent and not strictly academic, which makes reading of the review rather pleasant. It could be published as it is.
Thank you so much for overall appreciating the research design, analysis, research results, structure and fluency of academic language.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The title of the manuscript should be reformulated in accordance with the standards of academic writing.
2. Please check the name of the department and correct to capital letters.
3. Please refer to the Sustainable Development Goals as SDGs throughout the manuscript.
4. Please explain the link between violence against women and the topic of the manuscript. Please check lines 30 and 31 and add the reference for the information presented: ”In the second decade of this century, many problems like food security, refugee lows, violence against women as well as climate change have risen.”
5. Please add references for the information related to lines 41, 42, 43.
6. As with the aforementioned example (No. 4), additional references should be provided for the information presented in lines 46-55.
7. The text from line 62 to 78 should be reformulated. It is recommended that the aim of the manuscript be structured in a clear and coherent manner, for example, in this case, by the use of bullet points. The repetition of the expressions "this study" and "the paper" should be avoided.
8. It would be beneficial to include a more coherent representation of the manner in which the PRISMA method was applied, presented in the form of a flow diagram.
9. Please add "." to the end of the phrase on line 94.
10. Please include a reference to the information presented on lines 95 through 105.
11. It would be coherent to include a more comprehensive representation, for example, in tabular or flow diagram format, for the steps from line 110 to 126.
12. Please include references to the information presented on lines 235 through 240.
13. Please add more references to the information presented on lines 361 through 372.
14. Kindly reformat the text between lines 428 and 430 in accordance with the prescribed formatting standards.
15. Kindly reformat the text between lines 434 and 441 in accordance with the prescribed formatting standards.
16. Kindly reformat the text between lines 445 and 449 in accordance with the prescribed formatting standards.
17. For 4.3. The relationship between Waste Management and SDGs. In order to ensure coherence, it would be recommended to include a more comprehensive representation of the relationship between waste management and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for example in tabular format.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePer total, the manuscript should be reformulated in accordance with the standards of academic writing.
Author Response
Comment 1: The title of the manuscript should be reformulated in accordance with the standards of academic writing.
Response 1: Thank you so much for pointing this out. We have revised the title with more clarity, consistency and specificity.
Comment 2: Please check the name of the department and correct to capital letters.
Response 2: Thank you so much for pointing this out, we have corrected it accordingly.
Comment 3: Please refer to the Sustainable Development Goals as SDGs throughout the manuscript.
Response 3: Thank you so much for your comment, we have revised it accordingly.
Comment 4: Please explain the link between violence against women and the topic of the manuscript. Please check lines 30 and 31 and add the reference for the information presented: ”In the second decade of this century, many problems like food security, refugee lows, violence against women as well as climate change have risen.”
Response 3: Thank you so much for pointing this out, it was well pointed, the violence against women or other issues had not any relation with the topic, we have removed unnecessary information.
Comment 5: Please add references for the information related to lines 41, 42, 43.
Response 5: We have added it, actually the reference was same the next line, so did not add twice, but have added now.
Comment 6: As with the aforementioned example (No. 4), additional references should be provided for the information presented in lines 46-55.
Response 6: Thank you so much for pointing out this too. The reference is actually same for these lines which is mentioned at the next line [4]. But have added similar reference at the end of line 55 and repeated at the next line also.
Comment 7: The text from line 62 to 78 should be reformulated. It is recommended that the aim of the manuscript be structured in a clear and coherent manner, for example, in this case, by the use of bullet points. The repetition of the expressions "this study" and "the paper" should be avoided.
Response 7: Thank you so much for pointing this out. The comment is really helpful. We have thoroughly revised this part. Based on your comment, we tried to restructure this part in bullet points but the descriptive part gives more clear message, so we restructured thoroughly in the descriptive manner rather than bullet points. But again, thank you so much, the comment was helpful.
Comment 8: It would be beneficial to include a more coherent representation of the manner in which the PRISMA method was applied, presented in the form of a flow diagram.
Response 8: Thank you so much for your comment on this, based on your comments and comments from other reviewers also, we have revised the PRISMA method “inclusion and exclusion strategy”, especially the description of each step.
Comment 9: Please add "." to the end of the phrase on line 94.
Response 9: Thank you so much for your comment on this. I have tried to look into the document but there is no phrase at line 94 to add “”. I can revise it if you still highlight it.
Comment 10: Please include a reference to the information presented on lines 95 through 105.
Response 10: Thank you so much for your comment on this. The information presented in lines 95 and 105 is about the key aims, the method of literature, the types of studies reviewed, the years focused and so on. This is the description in these lines, not the information to put any citation. But thank you for your comments and highlighting it, your comment helped to go back to these lines and improve the language and structure.
Comment 11: It would be coherent to include a more comprehensive representation, for example, in tabular or flow diagram format, for the steps from line 110 to 126.
Response 11: Thank you so much for your comment, you have highlighted the important aspect. We have included the diagram already below the description of these lines. There were reviews from other reviewers on this part to improve the description of these lines and diagrams, we have reviewed it accordingly based on the recommendations of all.
Comment 12: Please include references to the information presented on lines 235 through 240.
Response 12: Thank you so much for pointing this out, the citation was missing for these lines, we have revised it accordingly.
Comment 13: Please add more references to the information presented on lines 361 through 372.
Response 13: Thank you so much for pointing this out too, the citation was missing for these lines, we have revised it accordingly
Comment 14: Kindly reformat the text between lines 428 and 430 in accordance with the prescribed formatting standards.
Response 14: Thank you so much for your comments, your comment was helpful. Based on your comments and comments from other reviewers, this whole has been revised and restructured.
Comment 15: Kindly reformat the text between lines 434 and 441 in accordance with the prescribed formatting standards.
Response 14: Thank you so much for your comments, your comment was helpful. Similarly, as above, based on your comment and comments from other reviewers, this whole has been revised and restructured.
Comment 16: Kindly reformat the text between lines 445 and 449 in accordance with the prescribed formatting standards.
Response 16: Thank you so much for your comments, your comment was helpful. Similarly, based on your comment and comments from other reviewers, this whole has been revised and restructured.
Comment 17: For 4.3. The relationship between Waste Management and SDGs. In order to ensure coherence, it would be recommended to include a more comprehensive representation of the relationship between waste management and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for example in tabular format.
Response 17: Thank you so much for the valuable comments on section 4.3, we had a similar idea to put the information in tabular or graph forms to give more information, we tried the same approach in the section before this but other reviewers suggested to keep it in a descriptive way and one of them suggested keeping tables as useless for this draft, so we have removed the tables from that section too. If you still suggest, we can keep the tables, or otherwise, if the descriptive part works, we can continue with that.
Note: The numbers on lines have changed in the revised draft because the revised draft is based on revisions from all the reviewers, but the changes have been made in each line as mentioned in the comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle comments: Context of Waste Management, Waste Indicators and Relationship between the SDGs and Waste Management
1.- The analysis was lacking in depth to comply with the discussion of discussing the aspects of waste management in relation to the objectives of sustainable development (lines 17-19).
2.- The results obtained in the last paragraphs of the summary (line 25) need to be precisely specified.
3.- The principles of the circular economy should be mentioned, including redesign (lines 56-58).
4.- Mention in the summary the paragraph contained in the lines (Lines 66-69).
5.- This paragraph seems to repeat what is indicated in the initial lines of this paragraph (Line 69-71).
6.- The statement that the review found a gap in previous studies and what needs to be done in a much more specific way needs to be strengthened or expanded (lines 71-73).
7.- What do you mean by limited scope? (Lines 76-78).
8.- At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to make clear what the objectives of the research are (Line 86).
9.- The reference to figure 01 must be made in later paragraphs where said figure is presented (Lines 93-94).
10.- What was the criterion for considering the year of start of the publications that were reviewed? (Line 105).
11.- The steps specified in lines 110-128 must be related to figure 01 (110-128).
12.- Expand the information in step 4 (Lines 121-122).
13.- In section 3 of Descriptive Analysis of the review, it is necessary to incorporate references that have similarly applied the review procedure used in this research (Line 154).
14.- Why are the articles between the years 2008 and 2016 not shown in figure 02? What is the total number of articles considered? (Line 180).
15.- It remains to indicate the values ​​of the percentages of each magazine (Line 186).
16.- The concept of management must also include operational, planning, administrative, social, educational, monitoring and evaluation actions (line 236).
17.- Biological-infectious waste needs to be specified, but also corrosive, reactive, explosive, toxic and flammable waste (line 241).
18.- It must be clarified that this implies changes in the manufacturing of products to generate less waste (Line 280).
19.- There is repeated information with previous paragraphs (Lines 318-319).
20.- It remains to be mentioned the prevention of waste generation (Line 342).
21.- Review because apparently there is repeated information (352-353).
22.- There are data that have been mentioned several times throughout the text (Line 358).
23.- It must also be supported by a technical-economic and environmental study
24.- Again there is repeated data (412-414).
25.- Increase the number of bibliographic references cited, since this is a discussion section (Line 628).
26.- Specify which decade they refer to if the study includes references from 2007 to 2024 (Line 629).
27.- Paragraphs of the methodology are repeated (665-668).
28.- There are paragraphs that correspond to the introduction of the problem that the text aims to address (675-676).
29.- The level of achievement was missing (Lines 719-720).
Author Response
Comment 1: The analysis was lacking in depth to comply with the discussion of discussing the aspects of waste management in relation to the objectives of sustainable development (lines 17-19).
Response 1: Thank you so much for pointing out this, your comment is so helpful. We have revised the lines accordingly to give clarity on objectives.
Comment 2: The results obtained in the last paragraphs of the summary (line 25) need to be precisely specified.
Response 2: Thank you so much for pointing out this, your comment is so helpful. We have revised it accordingly and specified it more.
Comment 3: The principles of the circular economy should be mentioned, including redesign (lines 56-58).
Response 3: Thank you so much for pointing out this, this comment helped us to revise the lines, and we have revised accordingly.
Comment 4: Mention in the summary the paragraph contained in the lines (Lines 66-69).
Response 4: Thank you so much for the useful suggestions, we have mentioned these lines in the summary/abstract.
Comment 5: This paragraph seems to repeat what is indicated in the initial lines of this paragraph (Line 69-71).
Response 5: Thank you so much for pointing this out, based on your suggestions, we have deleted the repeated lines.
Comment 6: The statement that the review found a gap in previous studies and what needs to be done in a much more specific way needs to be strengthened or expanded (lines 71-73).
Response 6: Yes, agree. There were comments from other reviewers also, based on your comments and the comments of other reviewers, we have restructured the lines.
Comment 7: What do you mean by limited scope? (Lines 76-78).
Response 7: Thank you for the important question, the limited scope means the limited years, limited region, limited publications or such other limitations are applied to this review which are already justified. Based on your comments and comments from other reviewers also on this, the lines are restructured and reorganized.
Comment 8: At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to make clear what the objectives of the research are (Line 86).
Response 8: Yes, agreed. Your comment is helpful. The objectives are mentioned clearly at the end of the introduction in the second last paragraph. The last paragraph is a further explanation of the objectives and method applied to the results.
Comment 9: The reference to figure 01 must be made in later paragraphs where said figure is presented (Lines 93-94).
Response 9: Agreed, thank you for pointing out this, we have revised accordingly.
Comment 10: What was the criterion for considering the year of start of the publications that were reviewed? (Line 105).
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out, the criteria and justification for the start year were missing, so we have revised accordingly.
Comment 11: The steps specified in lines 110-128 must be related to figure 01 (110-128).
Response 11: Agreed, this part has been revised accordingly. Other reviewers had comments on this section also, so the section has been revised based on your comments and comments from other reviewers. Thank you so much for pointing out this.
Comment 12: Expand the information in step 4 (Lines 121-122).
Response 12: Thank you so much for pointing this out, we have revised it accordingly and expanded the information in step 4.
Comment 13: In section 3 of Descriptive Analysis of the review, it is necessary to incorporate references that have similarly applied the review procedure used in this research (Line 154).
Response 13: Thank you so much for pointing out this, this important reference point was missing in the draft. We have revised accordingly and mentioned similar studies in the draft.
Comment 14: Why are the articles between the years 2008 and 2016 not shown in figure 02? What is the total number of articles considered? (Line 180).
Response 14: Thank you so much for these important questions. Applying the inclusion and exclusion strategy (mentioned in Figure 01), 30 full papers were read. In this number of papers, there were no papers between these years, so Figure 02 does not mention these years.
Comment 15: It remains to indicate the values ​​of the percentages of each magazine (Line 186).
Response 15: Thank you for your comment, the comment is no clear. But as we understand, the figure does not mention the percentage values of magazines but the key journals which are cited for the review results.
Comment 16: The concept of management must also include operational, planning, administrative, social, educational, monitoring and evaluation actions (line 236).
Response 16: Thank you so much for your comment, this comment is not clear to us. As we understood, we should include the concept of management by including operational, planning and so on steps. But our paper is focused on waste management, the general steps of the management will lead to distract the key flow of the paper. But if we have not understood well, we can still revise these lines if you suggest further.
Comment 17: Biological-infectious waste needs to be specified, but also corrosive, reactive, explosive, toxic and flammable waste (line 241).
Response 17: Thank you for pointing out this important aspect, we have revised it accordingly.
Comment 18: It must be clarified that this implies changes in the manufacturing of products to generate less waste (Line 280).
Response 18: Thank you so much for pointing out this, the changes have been made accordingly.
Comment 19: There is repeated information with previous paragraphs (Lines 318-319).
Response 19: Thank you so much for pointing out repeated information, as highlighted by you, we have deleted the repeated lines.
Comment 20: It remains to be mentioned the prevention of waste generation (Line 342).
Response 20: Thank you so much for pointing this out, we have revised it accordingly.
Comment 21: Review because apparently there is repeated information (352-353).
Response 21: Thank you so much for pointing out repeated information, as highlighted by you, we have deleted the repeated lines.
Comment 22: There are data that have been mentioned several times throughout the text (Line 358).
Response 22: Thank you for pointing this out, the data has been mentioned twice in a similar section, the repetition has been deleted and the draft has been revised accordingly.
Comment 23: It must also be supported by a technical-economic and environmental study
Response 23: The comment is not clear, if it is linked with previous comment, we have revised it accordingly.
Comment 24: Again there is repeated data (412-414).
Response 24: Thank you so much for pointing out repeated information, as highlighted by you, we have deleted the repeated lines.
Comment 25: Increase the number of bibliographic references cited, since this is a discussion section (Line 628).
Response 26: Agreed, thank you so much for this important feedback. We have revised the part accordingly.
Comment 26: Specify which decade they refer to if the study includes references from 2007 to 2024 (Line 629).
Response 26: Thank you so much for pointing out repeated information, as suggested, we have revised the draft accordingly.
Comment 27: Paragraphs of the methodology are repeated (665-668).
Response 27: Yes agreed, the repeated paragraph of methodology has been deleted, thank you so much for this important feedback.
Comment 28: There are paragraphs that correspond to the introduction of the problem that the text aims to address (675-676).
Response 28: The lines are revised accordingly, thank you so much for this important feedback.
Comment 29: The level of achievement was missing (Lines 719-720).
Response 29: Yes agreed. The lines lack background information and discussion, it was an additional line, we have revised the part based on your comments.
Note: The numbers on lines have changed in the revised draft because the revised draft is based on revisions from all the reviewers, but the changes have been made in each line as mentioned in the comments.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Overall, the manuscript presents contributions to the analysis of waste management and its relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among the main contributions are the comprehensive and updated literature review, good connections with the SDGs, and points out the gaps and future perspectives for waste management with a focus on the application of the SDGs.
Regarding the scope of the study, it is clear that the authors conducted a broad literature review covering several regions (Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America) and discussed waste indicators in relation to the SDGs, providing a broad and contextualized view of global waste management. Regarding the SDGs, the manuscript focuses on the connection between waste management and the SDGs, addressing how adequate waste management can contribute to the achievement of specific SDG targets, such as the promotion of health, well-being, and consumption practices. Finally, regarding the identification of gaps and future perspectives, I found that the article identifies areas that require further research, such as the comparison of waste management before and after the SDGs and the study of global environmental policies related to waste management, a fact that I agree with based on my advisory and research activities. In this context, the authors also suggest the need for studies that analyze waste management in different regions and its specific impact on the SDGs.
However, the review is limited to certain regions and specific studies, which does not provide a complete overview of global waste management. In addition, policies and procedures were only briefly addressed and, since this is a broad literature review, I suggest that the authors deepen the discussions regarding how the indicators indicated as a reference for the fulfillment of the different SDGs established by the UN. Furthermore, in this expanded review, the authors mention the use of ESG-based tools associated with the SDGs as a strategy for parameterizing sustainable development indicators and converging efforts to optimize the implementation of public policies that are quantifiable and demonstrate compliance with these common requirements established in the 2030 Agenda.
Finally, while the article offers valuable contributions to the field of waste management and its intersection with the SDGs, it also presents some limitations in terms of scope and application of ESG-based tools for establishing public policies focused on waste management.
Author Response
Comment 1: Overall, the manuscript presents contributions to the analysis of waste management and its relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among the main contributions are the comprehensive and updated literature review, good connections with the SDGs, and points out the gaps and future perspectives for waste management with a focus on the application of the SDGs.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comments and for looking in-depth into the manuscript. We had tried our best to review the possible literature and present our contributions to the manuscript.
Comment 2: Regarding the scope of the study, it is clear that the authors conducted a broad literature review covering several regions (Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America) and discussed waste indicators in relation to the SDGs, providing a broad and contextualized view of global waste management. Regarding the SDGs, the manuscript focuses on the connection between waste management and the SDGs, addressing how adequate waste management can contribute to the achievement of specific SDG targets, such as the promotion of health, well-being, and consumption practices. Finally, regarding the identification of gaps and future perspectives, I found that the article identifies areas that require further research, such as the comparison of waste management before and after the SDGs and the study of global environmental policies related to waste management, a fact that I agree with based on my advisory and research activities. In this context, the authors also suggest the need for studies that analyze waste management in different regions and its specific impact on the SDGs.
Response 2: Thank you so much for thoroughly looking at the scope of the paper, the study objectives, analysis and suggestions by paper for future possible studies. We are pleased with your agreement with our discussions, perspectives and possible suggestions. We will look into national contexts and achievements of SDGs and waste targets of SDGs in our future research studies.
Comment 3: However, the review is limited to certain regions and specific studies, which does not provide a complete overview of global waste management. In addition, policies and procedures were only briefly addressed and, since this is a broad literature review, I suggest that the authors deepen the discussions regarding how the indicators indicated as a reference for the fulfillment of the different SDGs established by the UN. Furthermore, in this expanded review, the authors mention the use of ESG-based tools associated with the SDGs as a strategy for parameterizing sustainable development indicators and converging efforts to optimize the implementation of public policies that are quantifiable and demonstrate compliance with these common requirements established in the 2030 Agenda.
Response 3: Thank you so much for pointing out these important aspects. Your suggestions focusing these important areas are really valuable and useful to this manuscript and as our future studies. Firstly, yes agreed the review is limited to certain region and studies and this is limitation to our study, this opens door to future possible research studies by expanding the region or studies. Secondly regarding the indicators and fulfillment, we tried to build the argument but such argument needs the support of primary data or support from database and running the possible statistical analysis. The review might not fulfill this gap, so we will try to focus our future studies in this regard. Thirdly, regarding the public policy, our areas of study and limited scope did not allow to touch the public policy areas, we tried to work on this aspect for out this manuscript but we felt that the public policy domain is a broader area that needs to have a separate study. Your suggestion had helped us to work on a new research paper focusing on the efforts of different regions in terms of public policy areas to achieve the 2030 Agenda.
Comment 4: Finally, while the article offers valuable contributions to the field of waste management and its intersection with the SDGs, it also presents some limitations in terms of scope and application of ESG-based tools for establishing public policies focused on waste management.
Response 4: Thank you so much for your appreciating words and valuable comments. Yes agreed, the study has limited scope and has not touched on the application of ESG-based tools to establish public policy which focuses on waste management context. But, as mentioned above, your comment opened doors to our future research in this area, thank you so much once again for your valuable comments.
Additionally, we have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript with possible modifications based on comments from you and all other reviewers. The revised manuscript is completely revised as per comments from five reviewers.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors responded partially to the questions and the present form is not acceptable for publication. Comments 4 and 5, from the previous round, remain as critical ones for the result of the review. The literature for such field is vast and the authors persist on not citing all the documents listed in the references. The methodology to select the documents that are relevant for the writing remains obscure. This is far from adequate for a proper review paper and the editor should be careful in considering this document for publishing.
Author Response
Comment: The authors responded partially to the questions and the present form is not acceptable for publication. Comments 4 and 5, from the previous round, remain as critical ones for the result of the review. The literature for such field is vast and the authors persist on not citing all the documents listed in the references. The methodology to select the documents that are relevant for the writing remains obscure. This is far from adequate for a proper review paper and the editor should be careful in considering this document for publishing.
Response: Thank you so much for your critical comments. Your critical review has helped a lot to review the paper as well as to learn a lot. Your comments 4 and 5 were about the 30 citations in the documents and different numbers of references, about the tables in the paper, and a few citations that are not papers. We have revised the paper accordingly based on your comments; there was a problem with the number of citations and references because of technical issues; we have solved the issue, and now the document has only the references that are cited. About the tables, there are no tables in the paper in this revised version; there are figures that present the descriptive results; we have gone through different structured review papers and followed the method accordingly; we have incorporated the method and presented the descriptive results from the reviewed papers. Additionally, there are not all papers; few are reports and online sources because the nature of the paper demands that, the overall scenario of SDGs is well supported by academic papers and other reports from organizations like the UN. In the revised draft, there are few additional references other than the number of papers mentioned in the method part; those are the references that supported the introduction and other parts of the paper other than thematic results. Once again, thanks a lot for critically reviewing the paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll observations were addressed by the authors, so I have no additional comments
Author Response
Comment 1: All observations were addressed by the authors, so I have no additional comments.
Response 1: Thank you so much.
