The Role of the Circular Economy in Road Transport to Mitigate Climate Change and Reduce Resource Depletion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your paper "The role of the circular economy in road transport to mitigate climate change and reduce resource depletion"  has potential to be offer an important contribution to the field. It offers an extensive overview of the existing literature and therefore it can become a good reference in this topic. The paper however still needs working and polishing of arguments to make it readable.  Because the authors have by now build this big data base of literature on the topic, the task is to sort through it and help the reader through the paper. Here are a few suggestions for you to consider in doing your review:

1. Considering already from the title you are declaring a focus of CE in transport - how it can reduce emissions and resource depletion. Therefore it will be important to explain early in the paper, this specific delimitation focus to assess some specific climate content (emissions drivers & limits) and resource use (energy, metals, water-energy, minerals) and how CE impact those. Consider that you state in your title the words "mitigate" and "reduce" however, your paper is not about assessing the actual mitigation or reduction potential, only indicating what the papers state that there is a theoretical potential.  There is a difference.  You will need to explain that your assessment is qualitative, not quantitative in that, it does not compare and asses quantities reduced or emissions mitigated.  It only reviews the statements in the reviewed literature, suggesting that there may be some reductions. We do not know how much and your paper is not about determining this quantitatively.  It is important to clarify this.

2. The CE analysis applied to reduction of emissions and materials use for Internal combustion energy (ICE) vehicles, could be or should be distinguished from the requirements for Electric vehicles EVs. In your paper, you talk of one and the other in subsequent manner.  What are the implications of transitioning from ICE to EVs or Hydrogen- does it offer opportunities to embrace more of the 7Rs strategies of CE? Maybe it deserves a separated section.

3.Best practices-  you need to explain what are these best practices of? You propose many different practices that are already implemented for waste minimization, energy efficiency, disposal and treatment and others (results section). However, if these are all already "best practices" of CE, does this mean that already CE is being implemented or achieved?  In addition if these are "best practices" what exactly are they accomplishing in terms of minimizing emissions and resource use in transport?  Some indications of quantity will be necessary.  It is not enough to state what "theoretically" is expected that it will reduce either emissions or resource use.  It is not enough information to policy or decision makers.

4. Identify research gaps.  If there are gaps and you cannot quantify emission reductions and material use reduction from these practices, then you need to declare that there are research gaps, and where.  This can be a real important contribution of your work. 

5. There is repetition in your extensive recount of examples. Consider reviewing and eliminating possible repeats.

6. In the conclusions is important to revisit your focus and consider if applying a larger systems approach to transport will be necessary. Also, important to reflect on key questions that CE places over the future of transport. 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us valuable comments and suggestions. 

The changes implemented in the paper to respond to the reviewers' comments are in blue and the answers to each question are presented in Table 1, attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please add a conclusion section at the end of your article. 

Figure 4 due to its complexity can be further elaborated through the figure caption. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us valuable comments and suggestions. 

The changes implemented in the paper to respond to the reviewers' comments are in blue and the answers to each question are presented in Table 1, attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer Comments:

General Overview:

It is my pleasure to review the paper entitled “The role of the circular economy in road transport to mitigate climate change and reduce resource depletion”. This is interesting and state of art with a role of the circular economy in road transport to mitigate climate change. The paper is within the scope of Sustainability and is important for sustainable Supply Chains. However, it needs some major changes before publication.

I present the following comments that can help to improve the paper:

1. Is this a review article? In the current form as it shows how the circular economy help mitigates climate change and reduce resource depletion through previously published studies.
2. If it is not a review I could not find the innovation of the research in the article. Please elaborate 

Detailed comments: 

Introduction:

1. The literature is not reviewed well; the authors must need to review the recently published articles (From 2019 to 2021) that also need to be cited in the revised version. The authors should clearly show what have we done and why this study is important in the introduction section.

Methods:

1. What is the methodology for this part? IThis part is missing. 
2. It should have a figure to explain this.

Results:

1. Please elaborate on the result and explain with some figures.
2. How the present study could help stakeholders to adopt a sustainable transport system? 

Conclusion

1. What are the limitations of this study?

Best, 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us valuable comments and suggestions. 

The changes implemented in the paper to respond to the reviewers' comments are in blue and the answers to each question are presented in Table 1, attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The following manuscript “The role of the circular economy in road transport to mitigate climate change and reduce resource depletion” has been reviewed. The manuscript is interesting; however, the author(s) need to improve this manuscript by incorporating the following changes

1. The abstract section is well crafted; however, a sentence regarding the policy suggestion needs to be included
2. Information on the recent COP26 needs to be added in the first paragraph of the study
3. The significance of the study needs to be expanded as well as the motivation of the study.
4. The literature review section is well written; however, it’s lacking in recent studies.
5. The discussion section is well crafted but kindly compare your finings with prior studies
6. There are a few typo errors in the manuscript. Kindly check and erase such errors.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us valuable comments and suggestions. 

The changes implemented in the paper to respond to the reviewers' comments are in blue and the answers to each question are presented in Table 1, attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer Comments::

1. Is this a review article? In the current form as it shows how the circular economy help mitigates climate change and reduce resource depletion through previously published studies. Where are your research results? Any figure or clear explanation that indicates its importance?
2. The whole methodology is explained similar to review papers, where is the innovation in methodology?
3. How does this article reduce resource depletion? Any case study or research results to prove it as a research article?
4. What are the limitations of this study?

1.  

Best, 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your support, and the reviewers for the careful reading and valuable comments and suggestions. 

The adjustments in the paper to respond to the evaluators' comments are in blue and the answers to each question are presented in Table 1. Responses to comments made by Reviewer 3 (Attached).

Best Regards,

Prof. Andrea Santos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor:

As the author agreed it is a literature review so my point is this should be published as a review article, not a research article. 

 

Best