Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article „Banning vs Taxing, Reviewing the potential opportunities and challenges of plastic products." has as purpose is to review the potential opportunities and challenges of plastic products under the umbrella of banning and green taxation. Despite the work done, in order to have a higher quality, I kindly ask the author/s to take into consideration the following suggestions:
First, I would suggest extending a bit the introduction part as it is a very crucial to the study as it introduces the readers with the background and rationale for the research problem the article deals with. It would add value also introducing the research questions that the study aims answering in this part.
Table 1 should be renamed or restructured. If you call it “Experience of African countries on plastic products.” You need to explain the experience the researchers have explored, otherwise you need to name it “Research conducted on African countries. But even in that case I would suggest some findings of the studies to be emphasized. Another issue is why authors have focused on research on African countries and not on other countries?
The author/s should extend more the literature part, by not only mentioning authors and their studies, but also their findings and defining the theoretical and practical implications related to this study.
The analysis part is limited meanwhile the discussion part is missing. The author/s should compare the study findings with the previous studies ones and emphasize the contributions these study brings.
In rewriting the author/s should pay more attention to the description of the research methodology and tools used.
The theoretical, practical and managerial contributions of the study are missing. They should be introduced to the reader in the introduction part as well as emphasized in the conclusions part.
The text needs a review by a native English speaker. In editing the language one should also pay attention to the mode of expression.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind comments. The following attached cover page highlights our point to point response on the comments. The comment was very helpful in improving the article. Thank you again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion the article needs major revision.
- The dot after the title of the article should be removed.
- The abstract should not have more than 200 words.
- Regarding the keywords: first it is written in capital letters, the following ones are written in lower case
- Check the whole article for punctuation marks and spaces between words (e.g.
environmental protection. [24]–[28].[29]–[36].
banning them [43] [25], [26], [28], [32], [44], [45].
cleanest city in the world[49].)
- The figures should be further processed.
- References should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal!
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind comments. The following attached cover page highlights our point to point response on the comments. The comment was very helpful in improving the article. Thank you again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Sustainability
Thanks for assigning me the task of reviewing the manuscript titled “Banning vs Taxing, Reviewing the potential opportunities and challenges of plastic products”. The study is interesting since it discusses an important issue concerning about dumped plastics on earth affect our health, our socio-economic conditions, our coastal and marine environment as well as our climate. However, the work is well drafted. Before it can be considered for publication, the following modifications are required:
1. Abstract is not written proper, need modification with highlight the result and suggestion for policymakers.
2. Result discussion part is week, hence expand the result discussion section.
3. Include the suggestion for policy makers.
4. Cite the following relevant papers in your study:
DOI: 10.15208/beh.2016.06
10.1007/s11356-022-19410-9
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind comments. The following attached cover page highlights our point to point response on the comments. The comment was very helpful in improving the article. Thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to evaluate this manuscript. I highly appreciate the topic and the findings of the paper. I'd like to recommend few improvements of it:
- in section "material used" there are information about the methodology - I suggest to change the title in "methodology and material used" and to develop the methodology used
- the conclusions has to be detailed and highlight the benefit of the each scenario and the disadvantages
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind comments. The following attached cover page highlights our point to point response on the comments. The comment was very helpful in improving the article. Thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has improved extensively. The authors have addressed all the raised concerns.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion an improvement of the article is noted.
However, relate to:
- References should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal!
- Pleas visit here https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind comments. Now we have corrected.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
