Circular Economy and Internet of Things: Mapping Science of Case Studies in Manufacturing Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author

the work is well constructed and it is very clear. My congratulation. At the same time, I assign major revision because I see some issues:

1. This work is inserted in a SI and I don't see a clear definition with research question proposed by colleagues 

(2) García-Muiña, F. E., Medina-Salgado, M. S., Ferrari, A. M., & Cucchi, M. (2020). Sustainability Transition in Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing with the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas. Sustainability, 12(6), 2364.

(3) González-Sánchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A. M., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2020). Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(6), 2459.

2. Graphical abstract is wonderful but some Figures show a wonderful image but are not clear, it is not simple to read them

3.The list of authors in section 4.3 is not coherent to one proposed in section 4.4 (that is better)

4.circular economy is characterized by a combination of social and technological side (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119887)

5. discussion section can be improved identifying the policy perspective. What is the manner to improve the current system? The concept of circular premium is strategic to identify the perspective of consumer or business (B2C or B2B side) but also to permit the implementation of these practices.

However I'm favourable to publication of this manuscript

Author Response

Detailed response to the reviewer

General comments

First, we would like to thank you for the time devoted in providing insightful recommendations. We believe that your comments have improved the paper in many ways. We hope you agree that the revised version builds a richer and stronger contribution.

We have rewritten the paper, improved the English, incorporated text and improved the figures, along with new supporting references. We also took the opportunity to place the text according to the new MDPI template.

For a better understanding of the new version of the manuscript, all responses have been highlighted in the text with a green color.

The following pages deal with the detailed comments you raised.

 

Reviewer #1

1. This work is inserted in a SI and I don't see a clear definition with research question proposed by colleagues:

(a) García-Muiña, F. E., Medina-Salgado, M. S., Ferrari, A. M., & Cucchi, M. (2020). Sustainability Transition in Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing with the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas. Sustainability, 12(6), 2364.

(b) González-Sánchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A. M., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2020). Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(6), 2459.

Response: We included the research question and the secondary research questions in accordance with González-Sánchez (2020), at LINES 50 to 63, as you recommended.

Thus, the paragraph “The objective of this study is to identify the topics that have been investigated by researchers, their recommended reading list, which sort of the intellectual structure the researchers considered for the development of the case studies, the new emerging topics in the “IoT and CE” relationship research, and the social networks among the researchers” was replaced by LINES 50 to 55.

2. Graphical abstract is wonderful but some Figures show a wonderful image but are not clear, it is not simple to read them

Response: This response is highlighted in the text with a blue color, because of the revision of the other reviewer.

We increased the size of the Figures 2 to 6 and framed all of them.

We improved the Tables.

We expanded the letters of the texts of the Figures 7 to 12.

As a consequence of changes at Figure 8, we did some adjustments, as following:

(a) The text at LINES 545 to 569 was improved, clarifying the clusters and the cited references mentioned in the Figure 8;

(b) Some references were removed, because were not displayed in the new Figure 8;

(c) An APPENDIX C (LINE 829) was created (mentioned at LINE 655 to 666), what causes changes at the letters of the other Appendixes already created.

Other adjustments occur because of the changes at Figure 9:

(a) An APPENDIX D (LINE 839) was created.

(b) Garrido-Hidalgo et al. (2020) was eliminated from the emergent themes (LINES 597 to 626), because it was not cited at Figure 9 anymore.

We expanded the letters of the texts of the Figures E1 to E3 of the Appendix E (LINES 846 to 879).

3. The list of authors in section 4.3 is not coherent to one proposed in section 4.4 (that is better)

Response: We appreciative your support.

• We improved the text to clarify the difference between the results of sections 3. (LINES 534/ 536) and 4.4. (LINES 571 to 573).
• The section 4.3. regards the cited references that were relevant to the researchers.
• The section 4.4. considers the new emerging themes among the fourteen studies selected as a relevant collection for the research.
• As a consequence of your support, we improved the text of section 4.2:

The subtitle (LINE 514) “4.2. Citation analysis of documents: the recommended ‘reading list’” was replaced by “4.2. Citation analysis of documents: the most cited papers from the relevant collection”

The paragraph (LINES 515/ 516) “The result of citation analysis of documents, as illustrated in Figure 7, is the most cited papers relative to "Internet of Things” and “Circular Economy” themes” was replaced by “The result of citation analysis of documents, as illustrated in Figure 7, presents the most cited papers from the relevant collection selected for this research.”

The paragraph “The VOSviewer citation analysis of documents was applied to analyze the most cited papers from the relevant collection selected for the research.” was replaced by “Considering the VOSviewer citation analysis of documents, the minimum number of occurrences of citations of a document was selected as zero occurrence, therefore fourteen documents met the threshold. For each of the fourteen documents, the number of citation links was calculated. The documents with the largest number of links were selected” (LINES 518 to 521).

The phrases that included the term “recommended ‘reading list’” were replaced by “most cited papers”, as LINES 522 to 524 and LINES 530 to 531.

4. Circular economy is characterized by a combination of social and technological side.

Response: We added the LINES 100 to 115, in accordance with Idiano D'Adamo (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119887), as your suggestion.

5. Discussion section can be improved identifying the policy perspective. What is the manner to improve the current system? The concept of Circular Premium is strategic to identify the perspective of consumer or business (B2C or B2B side) but also to permit the implementation of these practices.

Response: We added LINES 696 to 731 in “Discussion section”, in accordance with the references:

52. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.: Six policy perspectives on the future of a semi-circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 160, 104898 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104898.
53. de Man, R., Friege, H.: Circular economy: European policy on shaky ground. Waste Manag Res. 34, 93–95 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15626015.
54. Lüdeke‐Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M.P.: A Review and Typology of Circular Economy Business Model Patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 23, 36–61 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763.
55. Oghazi, P., Mostaghel, R.: Circular Business Model Challenges and Lessons Learned—An Industrial Perspective. Sustainability. 10, 739 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030739
56. MacArthur Foundation. Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the circular economy potential. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016).

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides a large amount of useful information, is largely well structured and reflects an interesting approach from the perspective of correlating the terms EC and IoT in terms of published articles.
Although the results are explicit, below are some suggestions for improving the material from a formal perspective but also for content, an approach through which the authors' work can be put in even greater value.    1.From the description that refers to Tab 1. (regarding the bibliometric method) it is not very clear how the connection between the method and the research question that was assigned to each method was established. Why do those questions seem to be most relevant to the methods outlined?    2. In subchapter 3.2.1. (Identification phase), perhaps it would be appropriate to bring an explanation regarding the decision not to use other databases such as (Science Direct, Elsevier, Springer, Google Scholar, etc.) or Scopus in exchange for Wos; more precisely, in terms of the fact that in Wos there are articles indexed ISI, possible published in journals with
an increased I.F, so implicitly with higher scientific value and then the correlation CE and IoT reflecting a substantiated scientific relevance    3.Also in 3.2.1 (starting with line 172) was not established a minimum number of articles necessary to be analyzed using the PRISMA method? And if those January articles were not included in the study, why were they mentioned in the text? What would be their relevance?    4.The explanations of the procedure applied in 3.2.3 (Eligibility phase), regarding the exclusion of some articles, are sufficiently clear that (without upset) it does not require the punctual exposition of an excluded article, such as those in table 2. In addition, table 2 is a captured image (not a table itself) in which the text is not readable enough    5.In subchapter 3.3 (line 238) it might be worth mentioning if there are other similar software usable for analyzing articles in the WOS platform and if so, what advantages does VOSviewer bring over the others, leading to the chosen option     6.The text written in figures 2,3 4 but especially in figure 4 is difficult to read being much too small. Check if there is a possibility to increase it, if the software allows. Moreover, figures 3, 5 and 6 of the example are framed, although figures 2 and 4 are not framed, but are similar. Maybe it would be better to format them evenly.    7.Also in figures 7 and 9 are written certain titles that cannot be read (they are not legible) being the text too small written (in case of those with low density).                  

Author Response

Detailed response to the reviewer

General comments

First, we would like to thank you for the time devoted in providing insightful recommendations. We believe that your comments have improved the paper in many ways. We hope you agree that the revised version builds a richer and stronger contribution.

We have rewritten the paper, improved the English, incorporated text and improved the figures, along with new supporting references. We also took the opportunity to place the text according to the new MDPI template.

For a better understanding of the new version of the manuscript, all responses have been highlighted in the text with a blue color.

The following pages deal with the detailed comments you raised.

Reviewer #2

1. From the description that refers to TAB 1. (regarding the bibliometric method) it is not very clear how the connection between the method and the research question that was assigned to each method was established. Why do those questions seem to be most relevant to the methods outlined?    

Response:

• We included the research question and the secondary research questions (LINES 50 to 63 highlighted in the text with a green color, because of the revision of the other reviewer), which are established and connected to different types of the bibliometric methods, in accordance with Zupic and Čater [7]. The research question of the study will be answered through the secondary research questions.

Thus, the paragraph “The objective of this study is to identify the topics that have been investigated by researchers, their recommended reading list, which sort of the intellectual structure the researchers considered for the development of the case studies, the new emerging topics in the “IoT and CE” relationship research, and the social networks among the researchers” was replaced by LINES 50 to 55.

• We improved the text of subchapter 3.1. (LINES 179 to 182) and the Table 1 (LINE 184), which is highlighted in the text with a blue color and pink color, because of the revision of the other reviewer),

2. In subchapter 3.2.1. (identification phase), perhaps it would be appropriate to bring an explanation regarding the decision not to use other databases such as (Science Direct, Elsevier, Springer, Google Scholar, etc.) or SCOPUS in exchange for WoS; more precisely, in terms of the fact that in WoS there are articles indexed ISI, possible published in journals with an increased I.F, so implicitly with higher scientific value and then the correlation CE and IoT reflecting a substantiated scientific relevance.  

Response: We have added information about the decision of not to use other databases. The revision can be found at LINES 198 to 227. Some references were included to improve the paper, as following:

25. Carvalho, M.M., Fleury, A., Lopes, A.P.: An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 80, 1418–1437 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.008.
26. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., Delgado López-Cózar, E.: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics. 126, 871–906 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4.
27. Homrich, A.S., Galvão, G., Abadia, L.G., Carvalho, M.M.: The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production. 175, 525–543 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064.
28. Bown, M.J., Sutton, A.J.: Quality Control in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 40, 669–677 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.07.011.
29. Krefting, L.: Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 45, 214–222 (1991). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214.

     3. Also in 3.2.1 (starting with line 172)

• (…) was not established a minimum number of articles necessary to be analyzed using the PRISMA method?
• (…) and if those January articles were not included in the study, why were they mentioned in the text? What would be their relevance?    

Response:

• Thank you for your recommendation. We have included the text in LINES 235 to 241 in accordance with Meline [28]: “systematic reviewers often exclude a large proportion of studies—sometimes 90% or more (…)”. The reference is following:

32. Meline, T.: Selecting Studies for Systemic Review: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. CICSD. 33, 21–27 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_21.

• We removed the text “At the time of the study, on January 07th in 2021 (…)”. In fact, they are not relevant to the study. We had mentioned them, because the study data was collected in November, then our purpose was to show that the research remains relevant, even without those articles.

4. The explanations of the procedure applied in 3.2.3 (eligibility phase), regarding the exclusion of some articles, are sufficiently clear that (without upset) it does not require the punctual exposition of an excluded article, such as those in table 2. In addition, table 2 is a captured image (not a table itself) in which the text is not readable enough.

Response: We removed the Table 2 and the text related to it (LINES 267 to 269), as you recommended.

5. In subchapter 3.3 (line 238) it might be worth mentioning if there are other similar software usable for analyzing articles in the WoS platform and if so, what advantages does VOSviewer bring over the others, leading to the chosen option.

Response:

We improved the text at LINES 284 to 296.

The VOSviewer advantage is mentioned at LINES 290 to 292.

We realized that we had used the WoS analysis tool to support VOSviewer, but we forgot to explicit it in the subchapter 3.3, also on the abstract of the paper. The adjustments are at LINES 18/19, 293 to 295.

6. The text written in figures 2,3 4 but especially in figure 4 is difficult to read being much too small. Check if there is a possibility to increase it, if the software allows. Moreover, figures 3, 5 and 6 of the example are framed, although figures 2 and 4 are not framed, but are similar. Maybe it would be better to format them evenly.    

Response: We increased the size of the Figures 2 to 6 and framed all of them.

7. Also in figures 7 and 9 are written certain titles that cannot be read (they are not legible) being the text too small written (in case of those with low density).

Response:

We expanded the letters of the texts of the Figures 7 to 12.

As a consequence of changes at Figure 8, we did some adjustments, as following:

(a) The text at LINES 545 to 569 was improved, clarifying the clusters and the cited references mentioned in the Figure 8;

(b) Some references were removed, because were not displayed in the new Figure 8;

(c) An APPENDIX C (LINE 829) was created (mentioned at LINE 655 to 666 highlighted in the text with a pink color, because of the revision of the other reviewer), what causes changes at the letters of the other Appendixes already created.

Other adjustments occur because of the changes at Figure 9:

(a) An APPENDIX D (LINE 839) was created.

(b) Garrido-Hidalgo et al. (2020) was eliminated from the emergent themes (LINES 597 to 626), because it was not cited at Figure 9 anymore.

We improved the tables of the Appendix A (LINE 805) and Appendix B (LINE 812).

• We expanded the letters of the texts of the Figures E1 to E3 of the Appendix E (LINES 846 to 879).

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, after carefully reading your work, I have the following considerations to make:

 

Suggestions:

The article is too condensed and as it is 33 pages long, it makes it difficult to read fluently. Thus, it is recommended that the authors:

 

1) The circular economy model should be further explored and there should be a framework with other theory that supports the argument of its connection with IoT

2) Use systematisation with figures and tables, for example in lines 78-88

3) Table 3 should be reformulated, it does not add value a table with the references, for example, replace it by one, for example, with theories used, objectives, conclusions, limitations, future clues

4) Articles from lines 172-189, can go to appendix at the end of the article

5) Also the methodology should include a summary of what is understood by bibliometry.

In short, the authors should further systematise the information included in the article so that it is easy to read.

Author Response

Detailed response to the reviewer

General comments

First, we would like to thank you for the time devoted in providing insightful recommendations. We believe that your comments have improved the paper in many ways. We hope you agree that the revised version builds a richer and stronger contribution.

We have rewritten the paper, improved the English, incorporated text and improved the figures, along with new supporting references. We also took the opportunity to place the text according to the new MDPI template.

For a better understanding of the new version of the manuscript, all responses have been highlighted in the text with a pink color.

The following pages deal with the detailed comments you raised.

Reviewer #3

1. The circular economy model should be further explored and there should be a framework with other theory that supports the argument of its connection with IoT

Response: We added a paragraph in LINES 147 to 156 “The CE model is investigated in different contexts, with opportunities for its connection with IoT, for example…”.  Some references were included, as following:

20. Askoxylakis, I.: A Framework for Pairing Circular Economy and the Internet of Things. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). pp. 1–6. IEEE, Kansas City, MO (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2018.8422488.
21. Ramadoss, T.S., Alam, H., Seeram, R.: Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things enabled Circular economy. 9.
22. Reuter, M.A.: Digitalizing the Circular Economy: Circular Economy Engineering Defined by the Metallurgical Internet of Things. Metall and Materi Trans B. 47, 3194–3220 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0735-5.

   

     2. Use systematisation with figures and tables, for example in lines 78-88

Response: This response is highlighted in the text with a blue color, because of the revision of the other reviewer.

We increased the size of the Figures 2 to 6 and framed all of them.

We improved the Tables.

We expanded the letters of the texts of the Figures 7 to 12.

As a consequence of changes at Figure 8, we did some adjustments, as following:

(a) The text at LINES 545 to 569 was improved, clarifying the clusters and the cited references mentioned in the Figure 8;

(b) Some references were removed, because were not displayed in the new Figure 8;

(c) An APPENDIX C (LINE 829) was created (mentioned at LINE 655 to 666), what causes changes at the letters of the other Appendixes already created.

Other adjustments occur because of the changes at Figure 9:

(a) An APPENDIX D (LINE 839) was created.

(b) Garrido-Hidalgo et al. (2020) was eliminated from the emergent themes (LINES 597 to 626), because it was not cited at Figure 9 anymore.

• We expanded the letters of the texts of the Figures E1 to E3 of the Appendix E (LINES 846 to 879).

3. Table 3 should be reformulated, it does not add value a table with the references, for example, replace it by one, for example, with theories used, objectives, conclusions, limitations, future clues.

Response: We appreciative your support. The Table 3 was renamed as “Table 2. Relevant collection: author, study objective and case focus.” We replaced it by one with “Study Objective” and “Case focus” (LINE 280)

4. Articles from lines 172-189, can go to appendix at the end of the article.

Response: We removed the citation of the Appendixes along the text (for example: LINES 368, 376, 397, 412, 450, 469, 478) and added a paragraph (LINES 653 to 664) explaining that “The clusters of the Network and Density visualizations showed at Figures 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are detailed at the following Appendixes:”

5. Also the methodology should include a summary of what is understood by bibliometry..

Response: We added a paragraph clarifying the methods usually applied to review the literature and how the bibliometric differs from them (LINES 158 to 163) and added at Table 1 a column named “Definitions” (LINE 184).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think that you have improved all parts of your work. At the same time, I don't see the works of Guest Editors within of this manuscript. I remember you that you will be inserted within a project of this SI. So, there are necessary two actions.
1. section 1 should be proposed the concepts proposed by

(a) García-Muiña, F. E., Medina-Salgado, M. S., Ferrari, A. M., & Cucchi, M. (2020). Sustainability Transition in Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing with the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas. Sustainability, 12(6), 2364.

(b) González-Sánchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A. M., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2020). Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(6), 2459.

2. the discussion section you can propose your idea on this question. It is well defined but I don't see a specific response to the point underlined by colleagues.

Author Response

Detailed response to the reviewer

Reviewer #1 – round 2

1. I think that you have improved all parts of your work. At the same time, I don't see the works of Guest Editors within of this manuscript. I remember you that you will be inserted within a project of this SI. So, there are necessary two actions. 1. section 1 should be proposed the concepts proposed by:

(a) García-Muiña, F. E., Medina-Salgado, M. S., Ferrari, A. M., & Cucchi, M. (2020). Sustainability Transition in Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing with the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas. Sustainability, 12(6), 2364.

(b) González-Sánchez, R., Settembre-Blundo, D., Ferrari, A. M., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2020). Main dimensions in the building of the circular supply chain: A literature review. Sustainability, 12(6), 2459.

2. the discussion section you can propose your idea on this question. It is well defined but I don't see a specific response to the point underlined by colleagues.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your insightful recommendations! For a better understanding of the new version of the manuscript, this response has been highlighted in the text with a yellow color. We added paragraphs in LINES 156 to 168 - LINES 735 to 744 - LINES 748 to 749 – LINES 789 to 790.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,
Your work has been greatly improved.
I would just like to mention that some images and tables are not very legible. Especially the images. 
You need to improve the display quality so that future readers will be able to read them.
For example:
Graphical abstract
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure E1, E2 and E3
Appendix F

In this version received the above figures/tables are not properly legible.
Best Regards

Author Response

Detailed response to the reviewer

Reviewer #3 – round 2

1. I would just like to mention that some images and tables are not very legible. Especially the images. You need to improve the display quality so that future readers will be able to read them. For example:

• Graphical abstract
• Figure 7
• Figure 8
• Figure 9
• Figure 10
• Figure 11
• Figure 12
• Figure E1, E2 and E3
• Appendix F

In this version received the above figures/tables are not properly legible.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your insightful recommendations! You can find in attachment the images you suggested to improve and the Table 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf