Revaluation of Local Waste through an Ecotechnologies Strategic Plan: A Case Study with Digesters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript effectively, it can be accepted

Author Response

1.- Is the article adequately referenced?

Response:  references were corrected

2.- Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Response: Similar cases were added in the lines 292-294 and 354-356

 

Reviewer 2 Report

line 44: revise sentence. the word "water" here does not make any sense.

line 55: revise sentence. the comma before reference 6 does not make sense.

line 78 - 83: This paragraph is essentially one very long sentence. Break them up to several sentences for better readability. Also, it is better to have more than two or three sentences per paragraph.

line 166: "to know the user" what? the user's habit? the user's socio economic attributes? Be clear with this sentence. It is an incomplete sentence.

Figure 2 is in poor quality. Very blurred. Also, what is the source of this figure?

In the discussions, mention similar study using the same methodology and compare the results. 

last line, 382 has a very short sentence "most common to occur". What is this? and why are there so many random words and short sentence that makes no sense appearing throughout the manuscript?

A careful editing that ensures the logic and meaningfulness of each sentence in this manuscript is necessary.

Author Response

Consulte el archivo adjunto

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

comments have been addressed by the authors.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction must include some relevant case studies from other countries.

Methods are insufficiently described. Please see Fig. 1, it is not appropriate.

In figures Y axis, % should be in parentheses (%) along with Percentage.

Conclusions are too wordy, these should be concise, additional information should be added in discussion section.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

• keywords do not need numbers. please delete the numbers. 
• English needs some editing. Necessary punctuations are missing in some places. 
• Please improve the quality of figure 2. it is blurred.
• The legends in figure 2 has to be translated into english.
• Figure 3 is also blurred. please improve the quality.
• Figure 6, change “willingness to pay it” with “willingness to pay”. This comment also applies to the text/the rest of the manuscript.
• Figure 9. indicate which one is before and which one is after.
• Figure 9 and 10 can be merged together.
• Caption of figure 10 is a template and unnecessary.

  The reviewer’s general impression about this paper is that the paper has some potentials but is presented rather poorly.

An extensive and serious editing is necessary.    Evidence of lack of care can be seen in figure 1.

It is a screenshot of a random screen from ms. word.   

If the authors cannot take this paper seriously enough, the reviewer doubt anyone else would do.   

Please undergo with extensive editing, present it in a conference, get some feedbacks and repolish the paper before attempting to submit again. 

Reviewer 3 Report

see attached files

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf