Core Elements Affecting the Circularity of Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1 The author should revise the article abstract to incorporate complete and related information. For instance, the existing abstract does not provide a comprehensive work summary.
The introduction should add evidence that the Core elements affect the circularity of materials and should be researched. The importance of this research should be added.
The Objectives of the study are not adequately defined. Please revise it. And also clearly define the contribution of the study to the Scientific community?
The authors should present the methodology and empirically result section separately. Please revise it.
The result description is too short. The authors should add more details to the result description, especially in figure 1- 4
The authors should be revised the font and font size of Figures 3-4 according to the journal requirement.
The discussion section needs to be revised with a recent similar study. The authors should write 2 to 3 paragraphs from recent literature.
The structure of the paper is unclear to understand, and please revise it.
Please include the Practical Implications of the Study, Research Limitations, and Future Directions individually in the Conclusion Section
Author Response
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments and valuable suggestions. We will address each of them separately in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract - The authors provided an overview of the main argument and methodology. The findings presented in this section (lines 16-18) are, however, not discussed in the results section. Furthermore, the authors should present the findings in clear and unambiguous terms.
Aside from a review of relevant literature, the empirical section of the paper focuses on the rate of circular material use based on the data used in this study. The introduction and literature review should essentially set the stage for the empirical section. These sections do not appear to be linked. In the paper, the authors should consider presenting a single line of thought.
Introduction: This section appears to be lacking in-text citations, and the authors should provide references for:
- Lines 26-27: To tackle natural processes…
- Lines 28-30: The strengthening of the role...
- Lines 31-35: The circularity of resources…
- Lines 37-39 of paragraph 3 appear to be a separate paragraph. The authors should connect it to the preceding paragraph.
Line 29: the aim…. (start the sentence with upper case)
Lines 54-56. The sentence is not clear. Kindly rephrase and provide the source of the information.
Lines 80-84: The sentence is not clear. Please rephrase
In the reference list, the following in-text citations have been omitted:
- Line 72: Miсhelini et al., 2017
- Line 157: Tonelliet al., 2013
- Line 227: Ang et al., 2018
- Line 230: Li et al., 2009
- Line 304: Eriksenet et al. (2019)
Lines 320-323: The discussion of zero waste is inappropriate for the context of the section.
Line 338: Rename the table label to reflect the waste's impact on circularity and revise the table to include the effects of each waste category.
Lines 385-387: The sentence is not clear. Please rephrase.
Line 425: Is it Table 11 or Table 6? Please check and revise
Line 451: It should be Figure 2 and not Figure 1. Please check and revise
The referencing style is inconsistent.
I would recommend that the authors thoroughly review the manuscript and use a grammar checker to correct any grammatical errors.
Author Response
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments and valuable suggestions. We will address each of them separately in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author(s) should enhance the discussion section with the support of similar previous studies
The author(s) should be revised the conclusion Section like as,
10 Conclusion
10.1 Practical Implication
10.2 Limitation of Research
10.3 Future Direction of study
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for valuable comments.
The authors provided such changes.
1. The author(s) should enhance the discussion section with the support of similar previous studies
The authors extended discussion section by adding
Most of authors cited in this paper tell that waste is not an option. So, the studies should focus on how to improve the quality of the decisions to manage and recover materials over the time.
2. The author(s) should be revised the conclusion Section like as,
10 Conclusion
10.1 Practical Implication
10.2 Limitation of Research
10.3 Future Direction of study
The sections were included into conclusion part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 303: "Eriksenet (2019)" is missing from the reference list and should be added.
Table 4: The Table's label ("Group of circular elements affects circularity") does not seem right. Please rephrase.
Table 4: Include a column to highlight the effects of each waste category
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for valuable comments. The authors provided changes.
1. Line 303: "Eriksenet (2019)" is missing from the reference list and should be added.
The reference was deleted.
2. Table 4: The Table's label ("Group of circular elements affects circularity") does not seem right. Please rephrase.
The name of Table 4 is rephrased into „Elements affect circularity“.
3. Table 4: Include a column to highlight the effects of each waste category
The authors added separate column to the Table 3 to highlight the effect of each waste type.
The authors added separate column to the Table to highlight the effect of elements’ group on material circularity.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
