Sustainability Transition through Dynamics of Circular Construction Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Many thanks for this opportunity to review your well-written paper concerning sustainability transition through circular construction projects. The applied methods are appropriate and well-explained. The findings are clear, concise, and interesting which support the discussion and conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article „ Sustainability transition through circular construction projects “ it has a certain scientific value. However, some improvement is needed. In the following paragraphs I present a few observations that should be taken into account in the revised version of manuscript.

Section “Abstract”:
- at the end of the abstract there is no clearer assessment of the global impact conclusion

Section “Introduction”:

- research hypotheses are missing at the end of the introduction. It is necessary to set hypotheses as it is standard in scientific work. Hypotheses need to be verified or refuted in conclusions.

- at the end of the introduction, it is necessary to define more clearly the objectives of this research and its need in an international context. Specifically, who will benefit from it.

Section “Methods”:

- recommend complementing the statistical analysis of research data in the research. The statistical analysis will further enhance the research results. Statistical analysis should be part of every scientific work.
- it is necessary to add what has been compared in more detail so that the methodology can be applied purely in the future
- to characterize what hypothesis was verified by what statistical method

Section “conclusion”:

- separate the conclusion section from the discussion

- the established hypotheses need to be upheld.
-the conclusion is to be conceived both locally and globally

- the conclusion should be sharpened and the ballast removed as it is too lengthy

General comments:

- There are few literary sources at work. To strengthen it, I propose to broaden the foundations by comparing them with other work in this area.
- the discussion needs to be completed to have a global reach

- In the discussion I recommend to discuss with already published articles in "this journal" and etc. journals, especially with those dealing with similar issues. For example, these and more:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120835; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147549; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124394; doi:10.3390/su7021637; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020116; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.095 and etc.

- The presented article lacks research limitations and possible future visions. Research limitations and possible visions for the future should be noted.

-the end must be sharpened and shortened. Remove the ballast.

- the list of literature and the reference to literature in the text is not prepared according to the standards of journal. It is necessary to study the guidelines and adjust it accordingly

I suggest major revision. After removing the shortcomings, I would like to re-examine the manuscript and reconsider my position.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I found the paper quite interesting and professional however I have some recommendations for improvements:

• the literature review is quite narrow without presentation of hypothesis or scientific questions. It is worth to do it to show the value of the study for the knowledge development. Literature analysis and reference list could be presented a newly literature source (2021 year) from selected problem of the topic;
• In the manuscript the developed model for the sustainability transitions through circular construction projects can be detail represented: mentioned detail sustainability aspects; detailed the circular construction conditions and factors;
• The algorithm with a analysed problem can be shown as Figure.
• Add some more practical recommendations to the study results

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I satisfied.

Author Response

We are happy to hear you are satisfied with the revised manuscript.