Investigating the Agricultural Use and Disposal of Plastics in Malta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This submission examines the current use of plastics within the agricultural industry and the present disposal practices, emphasizing the Malta area. The adopted experimental protocols and obtained results, and the provided discussion and explanations are convincing. The outcome of this research will be helpful for policymakers across the globe and could be translated to other research fields as well. I recommend the acceptance of this submission. In Section 2.2. Nova Scotia, Canada: “insights” would read better.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review. As suggested Section 2.2 was revised to improve the flow of the text, remove certain repetitions, and generally improve readability. The title was also amended to better reflect what the section is focused on. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research investigates agricultural plastic waste through both quantitative and qualitative methods. It aims to identify and quantify the common types of agricultural plastic waste produced, as well as understand farmers' attitudes toward a collection and recycling scheme. The study reveals that practices like incineration and ploughing of plastic waste are common among farmers but also indicates their willingness to learn better disposal methods. It emphasizes the need for educational initiatives targeting farmers to discourage harmful practices and informs policymakers about the necessity of incorporating this waste stream into policies. Additionally, stakeholder interviews highlight the lack of sufficient data as a significant barrier for policy consideration regarding agricultural plastic waste.
The manuscript may be considered for publication after the following has been addressed :
- Revise English
- Authors should clearly the novelty of their work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English  should be revised. Several grammar mistakes and awkward phrasing. 

Author Response

The text was revised to eliminate the awkward phrasing and reduce any possible grammatical issues. In addition, the novelty of the work is emphasized in the last paragraph of the introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper introduced the Investigating the use of plastic and its disposal in agriculture in Malta. The author has done a lot of work, and the analysis is good. I think this paper is interesting and can be published.

Several weaknesses of the paper:

1. The written format can be improved, so the authors should check carefully.

2. Figure 3: It is not referred to.

3. Tables: it is better to use the same format.

4. Figures: there are too many figures, so it is necessary to integrate some of them.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The text has been revised to minimise as much as possible mistakes and facilitate its readability. In addition to this, reference to Figure 3 has now been added and all tables follow the format indicated by the journal.  The authors have also reduced some figures to make the text more concise.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to explore the utilization of plastic in Maltese agriculture, specifically examining its disposal. The primary focus is on comprehending the existing practices, challenges, and attitudes among farmers regarding the management of plastic waste. The authors are required to address the following comments before the paper can be accepted in the Sustainability journal.

1- The research methods appear lengthy and lack organization, as the authors employed two case studies (referenced on page 3) as a methodological approach. It would enhance clarity to incorporate this information into the Methods section, accompanied by a concise summary in the Introduction.

 

2- The title of Figure 1 is positioned above the figure; it should be corrected to be below. Verify this consistency across the entire document.

 

3- The citation for Figure 1 is Briassoulis, et al., 2010, while the document utilizes numeric citations. Ensure consistency in citation format.

 

4- Eliminate the unnecessary phrase "source:Authors."

 

5- Table 1 requires titles placed above the tables, not below.

 

6- Enhance the quality of Table 1 for improved clarity.

 

7- Rewrite the caption for Figure 4 to better reflect its content.

 

8- Clarify the reference to "Amount exported for R3*" in Table 2 by including an explanatory footnote.

 

9- For Figure 5, add a title for the y-axis in the graph.

 

10- Include details on the statistical methods employed by the authors in the Methods section, such as chi-square analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Numerous grammatical errors are present throughout the document.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. As per your suggestion, all titles of figures and tables are now below the diagram itself. In addition to this, the citation number was added to substantiate the source of the different figures. All other suggested edits, for example, adding a footnote about R3 have been followed. Finally, additional comments were made to the methodology section to substantiate the choice of tools utilised.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions for authors in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed review. The text has been reviewed to eliminate or reduce as much as possible the presence of grammatical errors and/or typos. In addition to this, in the methodological section, additional references were included to justify the choice of methods utilised.  This includes a paragraph about the filtering of biases in the questionnaire. The legal framework concerning ploughing/incineration of plastics was described in Section 2.1. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find data that can be compared to that in Figures 13, 14, and 15. Other editing suggestions were incorporated into the text. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Table captions (titles) must be placed above the tables.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires a revision from the authors to address grammar and typos in the English writing.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion