Encouraging Reuse in the Corrugated Packaging Industry Using Persuasion and Operant Conditioning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the article does not reflect the scientific problem, it has nothing to do with the problem of sustainability. Change the title of the article to “Stimulating the population to sort waste as a condition for community sustainability”. Otherwise, the authors will not attract the attention of readers to this important problem.
Unfortunately, the article lacks the author's novelty of the study. The problem has existed for more than 50 years (but the authors didn't adequately describe its relevance in the Introduction), all the methods used by the authors are common, the results obtained and recommendations have been used in developed countries for more than 20 years.
The empirical basis is also doubtful. The authors analyze in detail the results of the survey. But there is no data on the general sample, period and other characteristics of the field study. Add the questionnaire form in the Appendix to understand how reliable the results are.
All tables are randomly arranged, they are simply torn from the program. Make them descriptive for all users, not just authors.
It is necessary to make corrections to the article so that it becomes scientific and original. Purpose, objectives, hypotheses, evidence, relevant conclusions based on the results of the study. Now these are chaotic attempts to create an article. This is a student laboratory work with local conclusions according to the general method of econometrics.
The authors are trying to give the Conclusions and the Discussion in one section, and it is completely in vain. There is no scientific discussion in the article. Compare your results with those of other studies, highlight problematic issues, limitations, possible recommendations and prospects. Regarding the Conclusions. Now these are local conclusions based the tables in the Results section. The real Conclusions show how the set scientific tasks have been solved.
The article has no calculations of the effectiveness of the measures taken to stimulate waste sorting. What are economic, social, and environmental effects? No figures. All of it comes down to philosophical demagogy about the importance of something.
After all the changes made to the article, the abstract should change completely. The abstract is not informative: there is no novelty. Where was the study conducted? What are the real practical recommendations, the effects obtained?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
To increase the value of this paper, I think you should attach as annex to this article the questionnaires you have used. Without the questionnaires is difficult to interpret the data you’ve provided. Also, this way the other researchers can use the proposed questions for other research and cite this paper as you said in lines 420-421 of the article. You discuss a lot about the about the questions and the instrument you’ve proposed, but we are not able to see them.
Also, I would like to see as an annex the 16 types of incentives you have used so the other researchers to be able to use the sets you’ve proposed in case of solar panels, vaccinations etc. as you’ve said.
The hypothesis can be placed in methodology.
In conclusion, I would like you to discuss more not only about the questions, but also about the results and their implications for managers and sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done significant work to improve the article. The article has acquired a scientific character, and the author's novelty is clearly described. The following recommendations will improve the content of the article.
The article requires proofreading by a native English speaker.
Now the list of references consists of 31 sources. It is not enough for an original scientific article. The Literature review and Discussion are weak. The recommended list of references should include 40–50 sources. For a broader understanding of the problem set, I recommend using modern references:
Abila, B. (2018). Households’ perception of financial incentives in endorsing sustainable waste recycling in Nigeria. Recycling, 3(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3020028
Gilli, M., Nicolli, F., & Farinelli, P. (2018). Behavioural attitudes towards waste prevention and recycling. Ecological economics, 154, 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.009
Drobyazko, S.; Wijaya, S.; Blecharz, P.; Bogachov, S.; Pinskaya, M. (2021). Modeling of Prospects for the Development of Regional Renewable Energy. Energies, 14, 2221. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082221
Hilorme T., Horbach L. (2021). Innovative energy-saving technology management model in the company sustainable development system. 2nd International Symposium of Earth, Energy, Environmental Science and Sustainable Development (JEESD 2021) 25th-26th September 2021, Jakarta, Indonesia https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/940/1/012055 URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/940/1/012055/meta
Hole, G., & Hole, A. S. (2020). Improving recycling of textiles based on lessons from policies for other recyclable materials: A minireview. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 23, 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.005
Kattoua, M. G., Al-Khatib, I. A., & Kontogianni, S. (2019). Barriers on the propagation of household solid waste recycling practices in developing countries: State of Palestine example. Journal of material cycles and waste management, 21(4), 774-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00833-5
Li, C., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Huang, Y., & Harder, M. K. (2021). The incentives may not be the incentive: A field experiment in recycling of residential food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105316
Mak, T. M., Iris, K. M., Tsang, D. C., Hsu, S. C., & Poon, C. S. (2018). Promoting food waste recycling in the commercial and industrial sector by extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Hong Kong case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 1034-1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.049
Seacat, J. D., & Boileau, N. (2018). Demographic and community-level predictors of recycling behavior: A statewide, assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.004
Shooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., & Ryley, T. (2020). Using recycled construction and demolition waste products: A review of stakeholders’ perceptions, decisions, and motivations. Recycling, 5(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5040031Ñ”
One can recommend the article for publication if the authors consider these recommendations.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for carefully and thoroughly reading our manuscript and for the valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped improve the quality of the paper.
We are grateful for the time you have taken to consider our manuscript. We have reviewed the paper considering all your comments. The reviewer’s comments are in black text and our feedback on those comments is in green text. We trust that these revisions meet with your satisfaction and that you will find the paper to be much improved.
Thank you.
Reviewer’s feedback –
The authors have done significant work to improve the article. The article has acquired a scientific character, and the author's novelty is clearly described. The following recommendations will improve the content of the article.
The article requires proofreading by a native English speaker.
Now the list of references consists of 31 sources. It is not enough for an original scientific article. The Literature review and Discussion are weak. The recommended list of references should include 40–50 sources. For a broader understanding of the problem set, I recommend using modern references:
Abila, B. (2018). Households’ perception of financial incentives in endorsing sustainable waste recycling in Nigeria. Recycling, 3(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3020028
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 4 and used on lines 56 & 502.
Gilli, M., Nicolli, F., & Farinelli, P. (2018). Behavioural attitudes towards waste prevention and recycling. Ecological economics, 154, 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.009
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 5 and used on lines 56 & 502.
Drobyazko, S.; Wijaya, S.; Blecharz, P.; Bogachov, S.; Pinskaya, M. (2021). Modeling of Prospects for the Development of Regional Renewable Energy. Energies, 14, 2221.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082221
Answer – This reference is not included in the reference. This paper talks about modeling for renewable energy and couldn’t be related to the manuscript as it doesn’t talk about motivation, incentives, recycling, or reusing.
Hilorme T., Horbach L. (2021). Innovative energy-saving technology management model in the company sustainable development system. 2nd International Symposium of Earth, Energy, Environmental Science and Sustainable Development (JEESD 2021) 25th-26th September 2021, Jakarta, Indonesia https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/940/1/012055 URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755- 1315/940/1/012055/meta
Answer – This reference is not included in the reference. This paper talks about the energy-saving management model and couldn’t be related to the manuscript as it doesn’t talk about motivation, incentives, recycling, or reusing.
Hole, G., & Hole, A. S. (2020). Improving recycling of textiles based on lessons from policies for other recyclable materials: A minireview. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 23, 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.005
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 14 and used on line 78.
Kattoua, M. G., Al-Khatib, I. A., & Kontogianni, S. (2019). Barriers on the propagation of household solid waste recycling practices in developing countries: State of Palestine example. Journal of material cycles and waste management, 21(4), 774-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00833-5
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 6 and used on line 56.
Li, C., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Huang, Y., & Harder, M. K. (2021). The incentives may not be the incentive: A field experiment in recycling of residential food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105316
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 8 and used on lines 56 & 502.
Mak, T. M., Iris, K. M., Tsang, D. C., Hsu, S. C., & Poon, C. S. (2018). Promoting food waste recycling in the commercial and industrial sector by extending the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Hong Kong case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 1034- 1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.049
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 32 and used on line 502.
Seacat, J. D., & Boileau, N. (2018). Demographic and communitylevel predictors of recycling behavior: A statewide, assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.004
Answer – This reference is included as reference number 7 and used on lines 56 & 60.
Shooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., & Ryley, T. (2020). Using recycled construction and demolition waste products: A review of stakeholders’ perceptions, decisions, and motivations. Recycling, 5(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5040031
Answer – This reference is not included in the reference. This paper talks about the enablers & barriers for recycled construction and demolition waste products and couldn’t be related to the manuscript as it doesn’t talk about motivation, incentives, recycling, or reusing for the general population (very specific to the construction sector).
One can recommend the article for publication if the authors consider these recommendations.
