Sustainable Materials for Jewelry: Scenarios from a Design Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work "Sustainable materials for jewellery: scenarios from a design point of view" is certainly interesting and worthy of publication, but requires some  revisions that can improve it.

The introduction is not much focused on the topic of jewelery design, which is the object of the study, but on sustainable materials in general. In the introduction, therefore, the authors should explain in more detail the issue of jewelery design, the problem of its sustainability and the objectives of their research in this regard.

The work shows a Cartesian diagram that divides the types of materials into four sectors. In Cartesian diagrams, however, there are numerical values, which in this case I don't see. I therefore wonder if it makes sense to write that a Cartesian diagram was used. In general, are the four scenarios differentiated by numerical values?

Fig. 1 is very small and difficult to read and therefore should be enlarged. The photos shown in this figure also seem low quality to me.

Line 164: It is written that “No organic materials such as silica, soil, or water were used to produce the…” I think silica, soil, or water are not organic materials.

In the part of the work between lines 398 and 408, the characteristics of the bioplastics produced by designer Maria Carelli are explained. However, it does not seem clear to me what the application of these bioplastics is in the field of jewelery design. Are you perhaps referring to the Boys and Girls collection? It should be explained better.

I'm not a native speaker, but I think the English form can be improved greatly. The sentences could be shorter and more explicit. I therefore invite the authors to read the corrections that I propose in the attached PDF file. I also suggest having the English form reviewed by a native speaker or expert in the translation of scientific works.

I hope these requests of mine are considered appropriate by the authors of the work, and I make myself available to be contacted if they deem it necessary.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English form should have to be revised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. Your suggestions were appreciated a lot. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. 

You will find your suggestions highlighted in yellow, the highlights in other colors are related to the suggestions of the two other reviewers. 

* Please note that the order of the 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 changed to respect the order of the scenarios in the coordinate plan and 4 figures are added to better explain the contribution of the case studies. 

 

Comment:The introduction is not much focused on the topic of jewelery design, which is the object of the study, but on sustainable materials in general. In the introduction, therefore, the authors should explain in more detail the issue of jewelery design, the problem of its sustainability and the objectives of their research in this regard.

Response: We added in the introduction more references to Jewellery Design and the sustainability issues related to it. 

 

Comment: The work shows a Cartesian diagram that divides the types of materials into four sectors. In Cartesian diagrams, however, there are numerical values, which in this case I don't see. I therefore wonder if it makes sense to write that a Cartesian diagram was used. In general, are the four scenarios differentiated by numerical values?

Response: “Cartesian” was deleted in each paragraph it was mentioned. We do not need numerical values since it is a qualitative evaluation and not a quantitative one. 

 

Comment:Fig. 1 is very small and difficult to read and therefore should be enlarged. The photos shown in this figure also seem low quality to me.

Response: All the figures are enlarged. 

 

Comment: Line 164: It is written that “No organic materials such as silica, soil, or water were used to produce the…” I think silica, soil, or water are not organic materials.

Response:“Like silica, soil or water was removed”

 

 

Comment: In the part of the work between lines 398 and 408, the characteristics of the bioplastics produced by designer Maria Carelli are explained. However, it does not seem clear to me what the application of these bioplastics is in the field of jewelery design. Are you perhaps referring to the Boys and Girls collection? It should be explained better.

Response: yes, it is a jewellery collection entirely made in bioplastic. We explained better in the text. 

 

Comment: I’m not a native speaker, but I think the English form can be improved greatly. The sentences could be shorter and more explicit. I therefore invite the authors to read the corrections that I propose in the attached PDF file. I also suggest having the English form reviewed by a native speaker or expert in the translation of scientific works.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions and for helping us with the corrections. We also asked an expert to review the article. We hope now the sentences work better. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper presents a possible approach to systematically organize products adopting sustainable strategies and from these identify some trends that can be adopted in the jewelry field. Commercially available products and design case studies are reported as examples to understand these strategies. In the following I give my suggestions to improve the work.

General Observations

Please proofread the text for typos, such as missing words or letters (line 15: "in," line 48: "i.e.," line 51: "environmental..."), repetitions (lines 229-230: "On the other hand... on the other hand"), and typing errors (line 428: "are").

References should be added, especially when referring to commercially available products or companies (e.g., the sentence ending in line 34 or the one ending in line 43). Figures should be properly cited and described in the text to assist the reader.

Ensure consistency in definitions and terms used. Double-check the aim of the work as stated in the abstract and the Materials and Methods section, as they appear slightly different, and the evaluation seems fairly qualitative. Consider providing a proper definition of sustainability in the text, perhaps at the beginning.

In the abstract, you wrote, "...emphasizing the strength and potential benefits..." (line 18), but these are not clearly stated or analyzed in the text. I suggest highlighting or summarizing them better using a table. In the last lines of the abstract, it is mentioned that the paper shows how crucial sustainability is, also for higher education institutions. However, this aspect is only addressed in the last part of the conclusions. Consider discussing this aspect thoroughly in the previous section.

Introduction

Review sentences from line 47 to 53 for accuracy and clarity. Additionally, consider adding the aim of the paper in the concluding part of the introduction, derived from the state-of-the-art analysis, along with an outline of the paper's organization. This information should be placed in the introduction rather than the Materials and Methods section.

Materials and Methods

Given the limited number of case studies, clarify the criteria used for their selection to avoid creating a perception of a partial view.

Expand the description of the methodology, particularly regarding the Design Orienting Scenario. Consider using "Material-driven" instead of "invention-driven" for clarity.

When describing polarities and axes, cite Figure 1 for reference. Enhance the readability of Figure 1 by changing the character and increasing the size. Clearly indicate whether the axes have signs, and explain if the disposition of images in the quadrants is significant. Maintain consistency in reading figures, such as top-down and right-left order. Add a number in each quadrant for easier reference.

 

Results

Ensure that the axis names in Figures 1 and 2 coincide. Correct the names of the four scenarios to match those in Figure 2. Confirm if there are any additional subscenarios or categories and maintain consistency in defining the four scenarios in subsequent sections.

For Figure 2, assess the significance of the images shown in the background. If they do not contribute meaningfully, consider changing or removing them to enhance readability.

Clearly highlight and define the terms recycle, upcycle, and downcycle consistently throughout the text.

Consider adding enlarged images when describing each case study for better illustration.

Streamline the description of each case study to avoid excessive wording and potential advertisement-like language. Emphasize why each case study is placed in a particular scenario.

Add proper references for each product or case study immediately after the first mention, such as line 145 ("Lim Sungmook in 2020 [8]").

Discussion

Double-check line 335-336 for accuracy.

Evaluate the significance of the example starting in line 340; if it does not add substantial information, consider adding more examples or omitting it.

For the 3D printed jewel Orchid example, acknowledge that it represents a partial view of a broader field (Additive Manufacturing). Consider broadening the discussion to include trends, such as production on demand (line 364) and modularity (line 367), and reduce focus on individual examples.

Better explain and discuss the trends derived from the scenarios, possibly using a table for clarity.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language Proof-read the text and correct the typos reported in the suggestions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. Your suggestions were appreciated a lot. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. 

You will find your suggestions highlighted in blue, the highlights in other colors are related to the suggestions of the two other reviewers. 

* Please note that the order of the 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 changed to respect the order of the scenarios in the coordinate plan. 

 

 General Observations

Comment: Please proofread the text for typos, such as missing words or letters (line 15: "in," line 48: "i.e.," line 51: "environmental..."), repetitions (lines 229-230: "On the other hand... on the other hand"), and typing errors (line 428: "are").

Response: Thanks for pointing out the typos. Those indicated have been corrected and the entire text has been revised again.

 

Comment: References should be added, especially when referring to commercially available products or companies (e.g., the sentence ending in line 34 or the one ending in line 43). Figures should be properly cited and described in the text to assist the reader.

Response: There are no products or companies mentioned in lines 34 or 43 so we did not apply changes. We added more explicit content related to the figures to better explain them. 

 

Comment: Ensure consistency in definitions and terms used. Double-check the aim of the work as stated in the abstract and the Materials and Methods section, as they appear slightly different, and the evaluation seems fairly qualitative. Consider providing a proper definition of sustainability in the text, perhaps at the beginning.

Response: We have modified some parts of the abstract to make it more consistent with what is described in Materials and Methods.

The evaluation is based on observation and follows the criteria explained in the materials and methods section. A definition of sustainability has been added to line 45.

 

Comment: In the abstract, you wrote, "...emphasizing the strength and potential benefits..." (line 18), but these are not clearly stated or analyzed in the text. I suggest highlighting or summarizing them better using a table. In the last lines of the abstract, it is mentioned that the paper shows how crucial sustainability is, also for higher education institutions. However, this aspect is only addressed in the last part of the conclusions. Consider discussing this aspect thoroughly in the previous section.

Response: At the end of each scenario, a summary table has been added with the strengths and potential benefits of each case study.

We preferred to eliminate the reference to Higher Education Institutions from the abstract because it would have opened up a new analysis of teaching methods and research that would be too broad to be addressed in this article.

 

 

Introduction

Comment: Review sentences from line 47 to 53 for accuracy and clarity. Additionally, consider adding the aim of the paper in the concluding part of the introduction, derived from the state-of-the-art analysis, along with an outline of the paper's organization. This information should be placed in the introduction rather than the Materials and Methods section.

Response: The sentence between 47 and 53 has been restructured also taking into account the comments of the other two reviewers.

A part that takes up the objective of the paper has been added at the end of the introduction.

 

Materials and Methods

Comment: Given the limited number of case studies, clarify the criteria used for their selection to avoid creating a perception of a partial view.

Response: We added the number of case studies that were analyzed - 40 - and we added why only a few are presented (line 99).

 

Comment: Expand the description of the methodology, particularly regarding the Design Orienting Scenario. Consider using "Material-driven" instead of "invention-driven" for clarity.

Response: Methodology specifications have been added.

Regarding the replacement of Invention-driven with Material-driven we think it could make the understanding ambiguous. By invention-driven, we mean everything that is the result of scientific laboratory experiments and is therefore determined by a real invention. On the contrary, what is design-driven does not aim to invent anything but rather to innovate starting from what already exists. Both can be material-drive.

 

Comment: When describing polarities and axes, cite Figure 1 for reference. Enhance the readability of Figure 1 by changing the character and increasing the size. Clearly indicate whether the axes have signs, and explain if the disposition of images in the quadrants is significant. Maintain consistency in reading figures, such as top-down and right-left order. Add a number in each quadrant for easier reference.

Response: The image has been enlarged and references to the figure have been added. Numbers have been added and the order of the lessons in the text has changed, following that of the quadrants.

 

Results

Comment: Ensure that the axis names in Figures 1 and 2 coincide. Correct the names of the four scenarios to match those in Figure 2. Confirm if there are any additional subscenarios or categories and maintain consistency in defining the four scenarios in subsequent sections.

Response: The names have been corrected and there were no micro-sections. We have introduced some sub-scenarios in the comments - related to jewellery. 

 

Comment: For Figure 2, assess the significance of the images shown in the background. If they do not contribute meaningfully, consider changing or removing them to enhance readability.

Response: The images act as a "cover" and visually introduce the content of the scenario. We have enlarged the image so that it is easier to read. We would keep the background images if the words are now more readable.

 

Comment: Clearly highlight and define the terms recycle, upcycle, and downcycle consistently throughout the text.

Response: We add content in paragraph 3.1.

 

Comment:Consider adding enlarged images when describing each case study for better illustration.

Response: We had considered adding the images but unfortunately we are unable to obtain the permissions for each project.

 

Comment: Streamline the description of each case study to avoid excessive wording and potential advertisement-like language. Emphasize why each case study is placed in a particular scenario.

Response: Parts of text that could have made the description of the case studies redundant have been eliminated. The tables added for each scenario should further clarify why they are part of the specific scenario. 

 

Comment: Add proper references for each product or case study immediately after the first mention, such as line 145 ("Lim Sungmook in 2020 [8]").

Response: All references have been added immediately after the first mention.

 

Discussion

Comment: Double-check lines 335-336 for accuracy.

Response: It was deleted. 

 

Comment: Evaluate the significance of the example starting in line 340; if it does not add substantial information, consider adding more examples or omitting it.

Response: The example serves to demonstrate how in the jewelery world there have been examples of success in the transition from one sector to another. By adding other examples we fear that the focus will shift too much from the topic of sustainability.

 

Comment: For the 3D printed jewel Orchid example, acknowledge that it represents a partial view of a broader field (Additive Manufacturing). Consider broadening the discussion to include trends, such as production on demand (line 364) and modularity (line 367), and reduce focus on individual examples.

Response: We have modified this part according to the suggestions.

 

Comment: Better explain and discuss the trends derived from the scenarios, possibly using a table for clarity.

Response: We produced a table to help in understanding more clearly the conclusions and the directions for each scenario. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I commend you for delving into such a pertinent and challenging subject within the realm of design and sustainability.

Your exploration of the integration of sustainable practices in the jewelry industry is both timely and crucial. The examples you provided of companies that have successfully implemented innovative business models to promote sustainability in their processes through the creation of new materiasl, were insightful and thought-provoking. It is evident that your work contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse on sustainability in design.

While I acknowledge the value of the case studies presented, I would like to offer some considerations regarding the generalizability of these examples to the broader field of jewelry design. It appears that the argumentation relies heavily on a limited number of instances, and extrapolating these findings to the entire industry may warrant further investigation. The jewelry design landscape is diverse, encompassing a wide range of materials, techniques, and consumer preferences, which may not uniformly align with the business models discussed in your paper.

Expanding the scope of your research to encompass a more comprehensive sample of businesses within the jewelry sector could potentially strengthen the robustness of your argument. Additionally, exploring potential challenges or counterarguments to the proposed scenarios would enhance the depth of your analysis, providing a more nuanced understanding of the complexities associated with integrating sustainable materials into jewelry design.

Furthermore, the reviewer found the discussion on the paradigm of Zip by Van Cleef & Arpels particularly intriguing as a link between jewelry design and innovation. However, to further enhance the depth of your argument and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the design evolution of the zipper, it is suggested to consider the insights presented in the paper titled "The Evolution of Zipper Design: A Socio-Technical Perspective" (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3288155.3290586).

Please also consider the comments in the attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors are advised to look at the comments of the attached file in order to improve the quality of english language where it is needed

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. Your suggestions were appreciated a lot. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. 

You will find your suggestions highlighted in green, the highlights in other colors are related to the suggestions of the two other reviewers. 

* Please note that the order of the 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 changed to respect the order of the scenarios in the coordinate plane and 4 figures are added to better explain the contribution of the case studies

 

Comment: Your exploration of the integration of sustainable practices in the jewelry industry is both timely and crucial. The examples you provided of companies that have successfully implemented innovative business models to promote sustainability in their processes through the creation of new materials, were insightful and thought-provoking. It is evident that your work contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse on sustainability in design.

While I acknowledge the value of the case studies presented, I would like to offer some considerations regarding the generalizability of these examples to the broader field of jewelry design. It appears that the argumentation relies heavily on a limited number of instances, and extrapolating these findings to the entire industry may warrant further investigation. The jewelry design landscape is diverse, encompassing a wide range of materials, techniques, and consumer preferences, which may not uniformly align with the business models discussed in your paper.

Expanding the scope of your research to encompass a more comprehensive sample of businesses within the jewelry sector could potentially strengthen the robustness of your argument. Additionally, exploring potential challenges or counterarguments to the proposed scenarios would enhance the depth of your analysis, providing a more nuanced understanding of the complexities associated with integrating sustainable materials into jewelry design.

 

Response: Thank you for understanding the complexity of the topic. The jewellery sector is particularly crucial because it intersects different worlds and meanings: from art to design, from fashion to experimentation and research. The objective of the paper was not to trace the boundaries of the current panorama through the examples cited but, on the contrary, to open new horizons and application scenarios. The case studies were only an input of how the scenarios could be approached. We have added a scheme in the conclusions which aims to broaden the debate around the scenarios in the world of jewellery, not by linking exclusively to case studies but by identifying directions capable of speaking to a wider sample of companies.

 

Comment: Furthermore, the reviewer found the discussion on the paradigm of Zip by Van Cleef & Arpels particularly intriguing as a link between jewelry design and innovation. However, to further enhance the depth of your argument and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the design evolution of the zipper, it is suggested to consider the insights presented in the paper titled "The Evolution of Zipper Design: A Socio-Technical Perspective" (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3288155.3290586).

 

Response: Thank you very much for the interesting reference. It is a perfect input for enhancing the transition from invention to innovation. The paper you suggested was added as a reference in the article. 

 

Comment: Please also consider the comments in the attached file.

 

Response: Changes based on the comments in the pdf were done as follows:

 

Introduction

 

• Page 2 - We made the changes suggested
• The jewellery sector was examined because it is the authors' research area. Do you think it should be included in the text?

 

Materials and methods

• From lines 88 to 95 we added how the desk research was conducted. 
• We moved Figure 1 after the axis description

 

Results

• All the references were added to the case studies. 

 

Discussion

• We modified the text to “In the dynamic field of jewellery design, innovative solutions often emerge from unexpected sources.” We changed the sentence so that it was not ambiguous and that it also linked better with the history of the zip!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the first comments where mostly seen and the changes made in the script by the authors were needed, there is still a major concern: The relevance and applicability of this research to Jewellery. While sustainable innovations in various sectors provide valuable lessons and inspiration, the unique characteristics, functional requirements, and manufacturing processes of the jewellery industry mean that not all ideas and projects may be directly applicable. Customized approaches that consider the specific needs and constraints of the jewellery sector are essential for the successful integration of sustainable materials and design in this industry: ie Materials that are suitable for contact with skin in the fashion and accessories sector may not meet the requirements for jewellery. Some individuals may have skin sensitivities or allergies to certain materials that could be acceptable in other applications but pose issues when worn as jewellery. Also, the manufacturing processes for creating jewellery differ significantly from those used in other sectors. Techniques such as casting, engraving, or stone setting have unique requirements that may not align with the processes used for creating items in the food, interior, or fashion industries. Moreover, consumers often have distinct expectations and preferences for jewellery compared to other items. Sustainability considerations in jewellery may need to address factors such as gemstone sourcing, ethical practices, and the longevity of the pieces, which may not be as prominent in other sectors.

There also some more comments in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor comments in the text

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper, following the initial two reviews.

I have carefully reviewed the changes made in response to the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewer. While there have been some improvements, I must express that there still appears to be room for enhancement. It is crucial to address the attached comments for further refinement:

1. I encourage you to carefully consider these suggestions and make the necessary adjustments to enhance the overall quality of your paper. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or require additional clarification on the feedback provided.

Thank you for your continued efforts and dedication to improving your work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the corrections and notes. We have modified the references as per your instructions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf