Forecasting of Disassembly Waste Generation under Uncertainties Using Digital Twinning-Based Hidden Markov Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Journal

Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID

sustainability-1191186

Type

Article

Number of Pages

26

Title

Forecasting of disassembly waste generation under uncertainties using digital twinning-based hidden Markov model

This paper aims on forecasting waste generation. It is an interesting paper, however, significant improvements are necessary.

Major comments are below:

I would recommend to directly use journals template.

Abstract – more clearly specify your aim.

Last paragraph of introduction – provide clearly aim of your contribution.

Introduction – needs to be more coherent and it should clearly presents the aim of the contribution. It should summarize the essence of the research and gives only strictly limited references that support the state of the present knowledge. Provide not only information about prediction methods, but also more about the situation analysis.

There is a couple of papers, which should help you with that:

https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v250y2016i2p639-651.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119318919

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223511664_Time_series_analysis_and_forecasting_techniques_for_municipal_solid_waste_management

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919302502

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617327403

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344921001403

In addition, do not forget to place there more about situation analysis:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919305051

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.068

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/466

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620340014

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X02000144

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-020-01177-z

Afterwards, unify formatting of equations.

Rather call ARMA: “Autoregressive–moving-average model” and not “auto-regressive moving average”.

Reconsider structure of the paper – from chapter 4 on. Having Results and discussion as one of the second level sub-chapters does not make sense by my point of view.

Also, rather then case study, maybe the chapter could be called something like “model verification etc”.

Among other issues is lack of description of results (especially those in form of tables an figures).

Among other crucial issues is lack of discussion. Discussion should unambiguously express a comparison of the achieved results with the previous knowledge of the topic. It must make clear what is completely new in the presented results and where these results differ from the findings of other authors, and in what they coincide with the published opinions. Discussion should emphasise the significance of the results and draw attention to the newly opened issues and the need for their solution. All of that is missing so far.

I can also imagine some improvement in conclusion – currently is something between introduction and overview. Rather focus more clearly on summing and concluding your work + providing information about practical implications of your research.

Otherwise, it is nice piece of work.

I wish you luck.

Best regards,

The Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Forecasting of disassembly waste generation under uncertainties using digital twinning-based hidden Markov model" is interesting for journal readers but the current version of manuscript needs revisions before further consideration.

The aim of the paper should be assessed more uniformly through the paper.

Moreover, the authors should start with a clear question(s) that will be answered. The objectives and/or research questions section would help to summarize and focus the overall aim of the study and improve the conclusions section, once the main ideas are clearly systematized.

As far as the methodological approach is concerning, the section "Problem description and modeling" requires further explanation and discussion for a full comprehension of the analysis.

Moreover, the literature should be enriched, in such a way that the contribution of technological diffusion processes in waste generation context is identified (Aldieri and Vinci, 2020; Bai et al., 2019).

The results of the analysis should be further discussed and improved also in terms of policy implications. The contribution can be made evident only putting the accent on the gap in the literature.

The quality of communication should be improved. Some sentences are not clear and some parts are confusing.

References.

Aldieri L. and Vinci C. P. (2020). Climate Change and Knowledge Spillovers for Cleaner Production, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122729.

Bai Y., Ochuodho T. O. and Yang J. (2019). Impact of land use and climate change on water-related ecosystem services in Kentucky, USA. Ecological Indicators, 102, 51-64.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

I can you that you have significantly improved your paper and that the reviewers comments served this manuscript well. 

Please, focus now on improvement of the language quality. 

Good luck, 

The Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been structurally improved according to the reviewers' comments. Now, the current version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx