Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This paper reorganizes TRIZ techniques with eco-product case examples to provide a design guideline for the designer to improve product design with eco-friendly concepts.
2. It is a kind of design guideline database book.
3. Two generic suggestion strategies (15. Ideality, 18. Design for assembly) in Figure 3 are not mentioned in Table 1.
4. 59 guidelines (from page 9 to page 30) should be formed as Table 2.
5. In line 100, “This thesis” should changes to “This paper”.
6. In line 171, “In this chapter” should changes to “In this section”.
7. Please provide a case example to illustrate the use of proposed method and design guideline database.

Author Response

We thank all reviewers for their manuscript analysis and for the numerous comments provided. Their consideration has allowed us to substantially modify the manuscript, integrating the comments provided.

Following the review work, the structure of the manuscript has changed in several places:

• The presentation of the guidelines has been improved, increasing scientific rigor and presenting the contents more deeply.
• The number of the proposed guidelines has been significantly reduced, accepting to provide them to the reader by indicating an external portal.
• The layout for the presentation of the contents has been ordered, also with the elimination of the voluminous tables and their translation in a more concise and at the same time more explanatory textual manner.
• A new section relating to method validation has been introduced in the final part of the manuscript.
• Few minor modifications have been made to correct the manuscript at some points and stressing some aspects.

The new structure provided to the manuscript aim to satisfy at the same time the request of all the reviewers, some of which are not fully aligned. For this reason, we favored two main compromise solutions.

In order to provide the guidelines to the reader through the manuscript, eliminating at the same time the enormous table reporting them all, we opted for a selection of the guidelines by reporting only one guideline for each type of generic suggestion, in a textual way and more suited to a scientific publication.

To provide the evidence about guideline validation, to increase the rigor of the proposed methodology and highlighting what aspects emerged from their practical application as in the essence of the case study, we provided the new section condensing testing dynamics (involved people, evaluation criteria, tests results) and the discussion about the differences between the ideal and the real application modes.

Answers to Reviewer 1

• Two generic suggestion strategies (15. Ideality, 18. Design for assembly) in Figure 3 are not mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1 was eliminated from the paper. Its content was textually reported in section 3 and the generic suggestions of “Ideality” and “Design for assembly” have been mentioned within this section.

• 59 guidelines (from page 9 to page 30) should be formed as Table 2.

The structure of the presentation of the guidelines was changed and the tables containing the guidelines and their contents were substituted by a textual presentation.

• In line 100, “This thesis” should change to “This paper”.

The correction was done.

• In line 171, “In this chapter” should changes to “In this section”.

The correction was done.

• Please provide a case example to illustrate the use of proposed method and design guideline database.

A new section about method validation was added to the manuscript. It provides an idea about what strengths and limitations have been encountered by students that use them on real industrial case studies.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

what other attempts to do a macro review of standards are out there? how does your model differ from others

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer 2

• What other attempts to do a macro review of standards are out there? how does your model differ from others

In the final part of the introduction, other attempts dealing with standards and Eco guidelines have been reported by specifying their differences with our proposal.

 

Answers to All Reviewers

We thank all reviewers for their manuscript analysis and for the numerous comments provided. Their consideration has allowed us to substantially modify the manuscript, integrating the comments provided.

Following the review work, the structure of the manuscript has changed in several places:

• The presentation of the guidelines has been improved, increasing scientific rigor and presenting the contents in a deeper way.
• The number of the proposed guidelines has been significantly reduced, accepting to provide them to the reader by indicating an external portal.
• The layout for the presentation of the contents has been ordered, also with the elimination of the voluminous tables and their translation in a more concise and at the same time more explanatory textual manner.
• A new section relating to method validation has been introduced in the final part of the manuscript.
• Few minor modifications have been made in order to correct the manuscript at some points and stressing some aspects.

The new structure provided to the manuscript aim to satisfy at the same time the request of all the reviewers, some of which are not fully aligned. For this reason, we favored two main compromise solutions.

In order to provide the guidelines to the reader through the manuscript, eliminating at the same time the enormous table reporting them all, we opted for a selection of the guidelines by reporting only one guideline for each type of generic suggestion, in a textual way and more suited to a scientific publication.

In order to provide the evidence about guideline validation, to increase the rigor of the proposed methodology and highlighting what aspects emerged from their practical application as in the essence of the case study, we provided the new section condensing testing dynamics (involved people, evaluation criteria, tests results) and the discussion about the differences between the ideal and the real application modes.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In terms of Abstract, the paper claims that A web-based interactive interface is proposed. Actually, we could not find "a web-based interface". could te paper provide any evidence to show how the web-site can be used. It is just a map without any function or interface. http://chsp.altervista.org/EcodesignMap/index.html
2. Line 63-66 the paper claims that "59 guidelines" are faster to be applied. As far as we are concerned, it has a longer list than that of TRIZ. how the 59 guidelines can be effectively applied for SME - Small and Medium Enterprises? Indeed the statement is not convincing.
3. The paper did not have any methodolgy. How the lists of guidelines are reliable and valid?  by experts, interview or ---?
4. Line 185 in the map in "figure 9". How could we find figure 9. there are only 3 Figures. please make it clearly
5. The quality of the presentation is not so good. the table 1 and the table without name from page 9 to page 30 is such a Long table. This is not acceptable in any kinds of Journals.
6. Line 214-218: the paper states "At this stage, it is difficult to quantify the efficacy. Since this methodology was developed,
   -------makes it useful for small and medium enterprises." We expect the significant result are well reported and explained in the paper so that the contribution will be clear. 

Author Response

Answers to All Reviewers

We thank all reviewers for their manuscript analysis and for the numerous comments provided. Their consideration has allowed us to substantially modify the manuscript, integrating the comments provided.

Following the review work, the structure of the manuscript has changed in several places:

• The presentation of the guidelines has been improved, increasing scientific rigor and presenting the contents in a deeper way.
• The number of the proposed guidelines has been significantly reduced, accepting to provide them to the reader by indicating an external portal.
• The layout for the presentation of the contents has been ordered, also with the elimination of the voluminous tables and their translation in a more concise and at the same time more explanatory textual manner.
• A new section relating to method validation has been introduced in the final part of the manuscript.
• Few minor modifications have been made in order to correct the manuscript at some points and stressing some aspects.

The new structure provided to the manuscript aim to satisfy at the same time the request of all the reviewers, some of which are not fully aligned. For this reason, we favored two main compromise solutions.

In order to provide the guidelines to the reader through the manuscript, eliminating at the same time the enormous table reporting them all, we opted for a selection of the guidelines by reporting only one guideline for each type of generic suggestion, in a textual way and more suited to a scientific publication.

In order to provide the evidence about guideline validation, to increase the rigor of the proposed methodology and highlighting what aspects emerged from their practical application as in the essence of the case study, we provided the new section condensing testing dynamics (involved people, evaluation criteria, tests results) and the discussion about the differences between the ideal and the real application modes.

Answers to Reviewer 3

• In terms of Abstract, the paper claims that A web-based interactive interface is proposed.
  Actually, we could not find "a web-based interface". could te paper provide any evidence
  to show how the web-site can be used. It is just a map without any function or
  http://chsp.altervista.org/EcodesignMap/index.html

This sentence was eliminated from the abstract. The indication of the web portal is provided only to present the entire set of the guidelines to the reader, without claiming additional functions from it, but demanding them to future developments.

• Line 63-66 the paper claims that "59 guidelines" are faster to be applied. As far as we are
  concerned, it has a longer list than that of TRIZ. how the 59 guidelines can be effectively
  applied for SME - Small and Medium Enterprises? Indeed the statement is not convincing.
  

This sentence was substituted with another one demanding the motives of our convictions about the possibility to apply the guidelines in SMEs explicitly to those strengths that emerged from tests with students and reported in section 4 (method validation).

• The paper did not have any methodology. How the lists of guidelines are reliable and
  valid? by experts, interview or ---?

A new chapter (section 4)  of the paper was introduced to explain how the guidelines were validated.

• Line 185 in the map in "figure 9". How could we find figure 9. there are only 3 Figures.
  please make it clearly

The reference of “figure 9” was changed in “figure 3”.

• The quality of the presentation is not so good. the table 1 and the table without name
  from page 9 to page 30 is such a Long table. This is not acceptable in any kinds of

Both tables have been removed from the article. Trying to better interpret the reviewer's opinion and advice, chapters 3 and 4 are totally revised.

in order to highlight the methodological part of the guidelines, a table has been added with the suggestions that derive from TRIZ. For each suggestion, a more complete definition has been introduced as well as an example of how it was implemented in the guidelines.
Furthermore, we have eliminated chapter 4 with all the guidelines, leaving only a restricted selection, only one guideline for each methodological suggestion.

• Line 214-218: the paper states "At this stage, it is difficult to quantify the efficacy. Since
  this methodology was developed, -------makes it useful for small and medium enterprises." We expect the significant result are well reported and explained in the paper so that the contribution will be clear.

A new section (Section 4) proposing the method validation was included in the manuscript in order to show the obtained results from their application.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors modified the content of this paper and add Section 4 about the guidelines validation. Some Tables in this paper were reorganized as texts. However, a case example to illustrate the use of proposed method and design guideline database is not presented in the modified version of this paper.

Author Response

We thank all reviewers for their manuscript analysis and for the comments provided. We have tried to follow all the precious indications you have given us in order to improve the quality of the paper.

Therefore, the structure of the manuscript has changed in several places:

• Section 3 – A deep revision to this methodological chapter has been provided both by straightening the narrative sequence and by providing new methodological contents to better explain the method. We introduced several sub-sections and moved the guidelines from section3 to section 4, in order to dedicate section 3 only to methodological aspects. Only a narrow list of guidelines database was presented in the new section 4.
• A new section (5)  with an exemplary case study was introduced in order to illustrate the use of proposed method and design guideline database. It deals with the improvement of a valve by using the extract set of the guidelines. .
• Section 6 - validation was improved by structuring validation methodology in a more rigorous way by: presenting the starting hypothesis, presenting the cases studies, reporting quantitative data about the tests and by precisely referring each comment in relation to its source.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author 1' The revision has improved a lots. However, some presentation of paper is not well organized 2' Before section 3.1, could you please have an brief introduction or framework in terms of following paragraphs, it is quite strange when you read the following "sentence" or "title", e.g. Line 118 "M_RM_AMt - Reduce Mass Auxiliary Materials (Recycle)", Line 207-------etc. To sum up, the section 3 is not well written. It is difficult to understand and read without any "introduction" to frame the content of the section, in addition, subtitle or bullet points are needed. 3' The section 4 "Guidelines validation" has been improved, but the evidence is not very strong. is there any detail quantitative and qualitative evidence or result? could the paper present the evidence in this section, for example, Line 551 who claim that "they help in identifying-----." If this is qualitative evidence from interview, could the paper please refer "the person" or "stakeholder" in the specific interview time? 4' Line 510 "Different case studies have been collected----", what does the analysis level of case study? The analysis level of case is "a student", "a course" or "a product" ? how and what do "the cases" test? Line 515 states that "The test continued for two years-----", that is, It is a bright side that the method TRIZ in the paper have been tested. However, It is not scientific soundness without the appropriate presentation of qualitative evidence in terms of case studies. Furthermore, the descriptive statement is difficult to convince researchers to understand the validity and reliability of empirical study in the section 4. eg "550 The most common feed-back regards ------------------------------------------ 551 parts for indicating the component to be analyzed: they halp in identifying the most suitable 552 contradiciton for reaching the goals about sustainability." 5' Line 551 has a typo "halp", please correct it

Author Response

We thank all reviewers for their manuscript analysis and for the comments provided. We have tried to follow all the precious indications you have given us in order to improve the quality of the paper.

Therefore, the structure of the manuscript has changed in several places:

• Section 3 – A deep revision to this methodological chapter has been provided both by straightening the narrative sequence and by providing new methodological contents to better explain the method. We introduced several sub-sections and moved the guidelines from section3 to section 4, in order to dedicate section 3 only to methodological aspects. Only a narrow list of guidelines database was presented in the new section 4.
• A new section (5)  with an exemplary case study was introduced in order to illustrate the use of proposed method and design guideline database. It deals with the improvement of a valve by using the extract set of the guidelines. .
• Section 6 - validation was improved by structuring validation methodology in a more rigorous way by: presenting the starting hypothesis, presenting the cases studies, reporting quantitative data about the tests and by precisely referring each comment in relation to its source.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author 

The 2nd revision has been improved. We are satisfied with the feedback and result. Only minor revision is required as follows. 

1. Table 1 is not appropriately presented. Could the author just use bullet-points to presents the List of generic suggestions strategies?
2. In terms of 6. Guidelines validation, Table 2 is required to revise to fit the page
3. The name of sub-titles is not appropriate, such as "6.2. Test participants "; "6.3. Test execution". It is not very clear what is included in the above sections