An Empirical Study on the Main Determinants of Recycling Plastic Waste in Tunisia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The potential of the publication is high due to the large amount of data used. Interesting statistical methods were used to evaluate the results, which would need to be supplemented.
I have a question for researchers:
Why was the logarithm of the variables used?
The regression model and the related relations are then valid for the logarithmic variables and not for the original ones, ie it is necessary to interpret the results in this sense. Results valid for logarithmic data may not be valid for original data.
Given the amount of data available to researchers, it would be appropriate to interpret it more broadly, for example as time series. For data from a period of 17 years, the table of descriptive statistics has very little meaning.
What is the critical value for Jarque-Bera?
What formula was used to calculate Kurtosis?
In addition to describing the results from the table of decryptic statistics, it would be appropriate to comment on the data that are the minimum and maximum based on the characteristics of the governorate, or the period why the values are so low / high.
In the part and discussion, it would be appropriate to indicate the importance of calculations and research results.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
I am so sorry for my late response .
You can find attached my response for your comments.
I am looking forward for your reply.
Best regards
Lamia BEN AMOR
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
After my review, I think the paper is interesting but average. There are some concerns.
- Only in Tunisia, is a little bit fewer data and two or more countries would be better, that can be used to compare with.
- 2001-2020 a long period, that is good.
- As a suggestion, authors can try to use figs to show the dataset or the tendency of the data from 2001-2020.
- also, where is the dataset? a supplement material is suggested.
- a too long part of the conclusion, as for the policy implication can be concluded in results part.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
I am so sorry for my late response.
You could found in attachment the responses to your comments.
I am looking forward for your reply.
Best regards
Yours faithfully
Lamia Ben Amor
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are some more formal mistakes in the publication.
Figure 1 contains the legend 1,2,3, which is not explained
Figure 2 has no reference in the text, does not have a described legend, units on the y-axis are missing.
There is no space in the caption of figure 3. Figure 3 does not explain what is on which axis y and what is on the individual graphs of which there are 24.
The critical value of the test must be checked. Table 3: Results of the Hausman Test, as its value should be reported according to the level of significance. For 0.05 it is not 4.
After these corrections, the article would be suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Greetings from me.
You can find attached responses to your comments.
And I make the change in my revised paper.
I am looking forward for your reply.
Best wishes
Lamia Ben Amor
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept.
Author Response
Dear sir,
Greetings from me.
Thank you very much for your kindly message.
Hope to you a nice day and week.
Best regards
Doctor Lamia BEN AMOR
