Design of Strategies for the Implementation and Management of a Complementary Monetary System Using the SWOT-AHP Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-researched piece by authors who know the literature well and have found their own angle on the topic of complementary money systems.

I think a more thorough statement in the introduction of what their analysis purports to achieve would be helpful. When I started reading, I was expecting an empirical analysis of CMS but in actual fact the piece represents a conceptual analysis of CMS.

A clearer conclusion which sets out what the article has achieved and a point-by-point enumeration of its main findings wold also be useful

Author Response

Good night

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your words and your contributions, without a doubt your comments enrich the manuscript.

I wanted to point out that, together with the contributions of the rest of the reviewers, both the introduction and the conclusions have been modified in the new manuscript. I hope that they could have solved the suggestions that you made.

Finally, note that some aspects related to English grammar and spelling have been corrected.

I remain at your disposal for whatever you consider.

Sincerely

Prof. Dr. Ramón Rueda López

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and is well written; however, there is one major and a few minor points of detail where some clarification or correction or attention would be warranted.

1. The objective of the research (“The objective of this investigation is to decide on which or what may be the best strategies to implement and manage a SMSC in a specific territory (which territory?) to achieve this end”) is quite broad, and its findings have not justified it too. It is suggested to paraphrase and rewrite it to align with its findings.
2. The author states that the trial results (as indicated in line 426-430) are the results of the reflection, it will be wise to justify with the literature regarding the appropriateness of this methodology.
3. It is suggested to highlight more on the contribution of the paper in both the introduction and conclusion.
4. Inline 113 authors have stated “Complementary monetary system provides new opportunities for the economic and social activity of a territory”, but have not discussed how?
5. There is also scope for tidying up/streamlining the English in this paper as there are some typos and few grammatical errors (for example in line 214- the stronger has been repeated twice, likewise in line 305 new paragraphs is started with “Widely used since………..”; line 334 – “the energetic”, Table 2 last point “2,4,6,y,8, etc.)
6. Additionally, The paper has used both North American and British/Australian spellings. Both variants are accepted, but it is best to be consistent.

Author Response

Good night

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your words and your contributions, without a doubt your comments enrich the manuscript.

I wanted to point out that, together with the contributions of the rest of the reviewers, both the introduction and the conclusions have been modified in the new manuscript. I hope that they could have solved the suggestions that you made.

Regarding the question related to the critical reflection carried out, this aspect has been specified and citing critical analysis as the technique used, justifying in this case with the literature.

On the other hand, the suggested discussion regarding the opportunities that social currencies can provide for the economic and social activity of a territory has been expanded.

Finally, note that some aspects related to English grammar and spelling have been corrected.

I remain at your disposal for whatever you consider.

Sincerely

Prof. Dr. Ramón Rueda López

Reviewer 3 Report

I ATTACHED A PDF FILE

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good night

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your words and your contributions, without a doubt your comments enrich the manuscript.

I wanted to point out that, together with the contributions of the rest of the reviewers, both the introduction and the conclusions have been modified in the new manuscript. Incorporating in the first the table you suggested and clarifying some aspects of the conclusions. I hope that the modifications made are in accordance with your suggestions.

As you can see, the theoretical framework has been expanded with the relevant bibliographic contributions that he has made.

Finally, note that some aspects related to English grammar and spelling have been corrected.

I remain at your disposal for whatever you consider.

Sincerely

Prof. Dr. Ramón Rueda López

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Good theory review - All aspects covered .  Problem well explained.

Somehow, the authors have made reasonable improvements in the revised version and can be considered for publication.

Thank you for the new version. Yet the manuscript needs proofreading.

Line 61. ERROR:  strategies may be to establish an CSM in any territory –a city, a county (country) or a region– and optimise the……

Figure 1.  ERROR:   Estrategias (four times) (strategies)

I hope my comments will be useful for your future work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

De nuevo agradecerle sus aportcaciones y correcciones. En este sentido se ha realizado una mejora de la redacción. Tan sólo me gustaría precisar algo, con la palabra "COUNTY", nos referimos a condado, no a COUNTRY. Motivo por el cual hemos mantedino esa palabra.

Espero que esta observación le haga comprender algo mejor el sentido del escrito.

Muhcas gracias.