Sorting Analysis of Household Food Waste—Development of a Methodology Compatible with the Aims of SDG12.3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is an interesting paper.
I suggest the authors to make some improvements.
- The authors should make some changes in key words, by following the journal guidelines.
- They should move the definition in lines 200-202 above the table 1 and the definition in line 240 above the table 2.
- They should check the numbering of the subsection in line 239.
- The authors should further discuss their results comparing them with those of the analogous previously published studies
- They should further elaborate on the conclusion section as well as give specific implications for policy makers and for academics.
- The quality of communication of the manuscript should be also enhanced.
- The authors should move some details that nothing add to the manuscript in an appendix and make better clear the correlation between Aim, Objectives and Results.
- Generally speaking, they should make the manuscript more friendly for the audience of the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript needs to further improve in the current form before publication. The research questions are not clear enough and the authors should address the significance of the research. In addition, the. authors have not provided detailed information about the process of collecting data, such as the sources in the Methodology section. Also, the workshop was not consistent with the previous section and better to explain in details.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Number: sustainability-1277608
The manuscript is very relevant to ongoing research on food waste to resource recovery. Moreover, the manuscript is relevant to the scope of the Journal.
Detailed comments:
- It is strongly recommended to add a new subsection under results and discussion, 'Practical implications of this study,' outlining the challenges in the current research, future work, and recommendations.
- It is recommended to discuss and explain the appropriate policies based on the findings of this study. In addition, the results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications.
- Currently, the conclusion section contains both the concluding marks and recommendations. The future work-related points can be grouped under the newly added subsection, as mentioned above.
- Please eliminate those multiple references. After that, please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate all the lumps in the manuscript. Also, check with the Journal for reference formatting/style.
- Make the abstract more results-oriented.
- It is recommended to extend the comparison of the study findings with other similar published work under the results and discussion section.
- It is much recommended to provide a comparative studies table (literature review table), having similar factors/parameters as have been used in this study.
- The last paragraph or closing lines of the introduction section always highlight the novelty aspects of the study with the clear aim of the study and the importance/significance of the study findings. The manuscript is missing such key/vital information in its introduction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I don't have further comments on this current revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have verified the usefulness of the results and data and significantly improved the manuscript after revision. The manuscript is within the scope of the Journal. The manuscript is important to publish because of the topic/contents importance, precise methodology, clarity, and novelty. Based on my comments, I recommend the manuscript to publish as it is.
