E-Waste Management: An Analysis under the Perspective of Conflicts and Shared Responsibility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the abstract, you must state what are the main results, main novelty, and main implications of your study;

In the introduction, you should formally state the research gap and the research question your study aims to bridge. Please say why the study should be published, there is, what is the novelty and the contribution to the state of the art;

In the article, a review section needs to be included. Your second section is methodological, not a review. I believe you should review two essential issues, the concept of reverse logistics and the main channels (see fi Table 1 of https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/ceset/article/view/9025/9268); and the features that turn WEEE so dangerous. What are the risks of incorrect disposal of WEEE?

Please correctly employ the decimal and thousands separators (they are inverted in your text);

Extend Figure 3 from 2010 to 2022 to ensure that the issue increased in interest over the last decade;

Your Table 4 lacks theoretical support. You stated … In this context, we created Table 4, which shows the decision-makers and their options, 201 corresponding to each alternative that each decision-maker would have under their control. … This is your perspective, not necessarily a scientific, structured foundation. You must provide scientific, empirical evidence that this structure indeed represents your subject. As is, you cannot ensure internal validity to your structure (what you found is the answer to your research question). Therefore, I suggest rebuilding Table 4 by relying on a focus group with experts and mainly on at least two empirical references that support each item;

Remove all references not in English as they are useless to the audience of an international journal;

You rely on too few references. A more extensive theoretical foundation should support a study that aims to be published in a top journal. Please cite only articles (not proceedings) peer-reviewed, indexed in SCOPUS and/ or WoS and issued from 2017 on.

Best regards, you have a good job done, but some improvements are still required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The paper entitled” E-waste Management: An Analysis Under the Perspective of Conflicts and Shared Responsibility” deals with a very interesting topic. In general, I appreciate the aims of this work; it is quite interesting and informative to most readers of this field.

However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve their paper:

·       I suggest the authors give more introduction about why your study is important in the section of introduction. The research question must be better contextualized and be more convincing. What is research gap? How will this research fill the gap? The contribution of research must be more highlighted.

·       In the GMCR application section, your paper presents a very interesting approach, which it could be replicate by other researchers, so, it is important for you to illustrate your actions in a very step-by-step procedures so it could be used by others.

·       What are the limitations of your work in terms of the proposed method, data used, approaches, and/or analysis?

·       The authors should convince the readers, that their contribution is so important. These issues deserve a deeper discussion: What are the implications for theory and practice? What are the managerial implications from this research? How decision or policy makers could benefit from this study.

·       How can the proposed solution and the obtained results prove that the research problem has been solved?

·       It could be interesting to discuss in the conclusion part, the future work, several potential futures research should be addressed.

·       As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.

 

I wish the author(s) all the best for their research and that these comments will be useful to them in improving the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to explore such interesting research.

The strengths of the article are a structured methodological systematic study, its relevance and an interesting idea as the basis of the article. The arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling. Yet, despite the merits, the presentation of the study could be better in the following areas:

1)    point much attention to the article’s novelty in the abstract.

2)    Maybe it would be helpful for readers if the authors add the research questions the existing article’s goal.

3)    there is gap in the newest literature resources; concerning “corporate social responsibility”, it can be useful Dudek M. Methodology for assessment of inclusive social responsibility of the energy industry enterprises. For the research article 24 references it's incredibly few.

4)    mention article’s limitation in the separate section.

 

5)    In Discussion section point more at the comparison with existing studies, in which it is necessary to emphasize the novelty of the study and its practical / theoretical / methodological contribution and highlighting how the author's research differs from them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Ok, the authors have addressed most comments.

The overall level of the English is poor. I recommend a professional proofreading by native expert speaker.

Author Response

We would like to express our appreciation for your extremely thoughtful suggestions. We also appreciated the constructive criticisms of your review and have addressed each of your concerns as outlined below.

1- The overall level of the English is poor. I recommend a professional proofreading by native expert speaker.

In order to meet the recommendations, we forwarded, again, to another English proofreader.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved.

Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication.

Author Response

1- The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved. Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication..

We would like to express our appreciation for your extremely thoughtful suggestions on first round of review. Thanks again.