Sustaining the Environment: Critical Success Factors and Barriers of Solid Waste Management through Composting Practices by Rural Communities in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A well written paper.

The authors should have a native English speaker read the paper for some edits. They do not need to be familiar with the field. They just need to comment on readability and should reword content that appears a little awkward, e.g. the first sentence of the abstract should definitely be reworded.

Author Response

Please kindly find the reply in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Suggest reducing the number of words for the title. 

Make the figures (1 to 8) clear to the readers. For example, the details in figure 4 are unreadable even with zoom-in.

If case of unable to make the figures clear, suggest converting them into one table.

Check the fit of your tables.

Suggest adding standard deviations with your results.

Suggest ranking the question based on the mean value.

What is the logical reason for selecting 5 points Likert scale?

Author Response

Please kindly find the reply in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The Author/s presents the subject of sustainability. Their work consists of two main phases. First, identifying the critical success factors and then discussing the barriers to solid waste management. I found the result of this paper interesting but very important issues have not been addressed. Therefore, I recommend a possible publication of the paper after a major revision.

 

1- The abstract of the article needs improvement. It generally includes background, problem, method, and conclusion. Please try to rewrite it better. Simply explain your contributions and key findings.

2- The authors must highlight the innovations and academic merits of the presented manuscript to tell the readers the reasons why carry out this study.

3- The introduction serves the purpose of leading the reader from a general subject area to a particular field of research. It establishes the context of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the hypothesis, question, or research problem, briefly explaining your rationale, methodological approach, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal, and describing the remaining structure of the paper.

4- The quality of the figures is significantly low. It is emphasized that the authors improve the quality of the figures.

5- The conclusion part is also needed to be revised; which questions are answered, what is the contribution of the paper, and how the presented method answers the research questions that previous methods are not able to answer? Please propose and suggest more possible future studies related to the current study. Also, suggestions for management implications are needed.

6- There is not any reference or discussion of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). If the main purpose of the article is related to sustainability, then the appropriate reference to the SDGs should be mandatory.

7- There are no explanations for Figure 10, Figure 12, and Figure 13 in the main text of the article. This is not acceptable. All figures should be explained and referenced in the text.

8- The important research findings are obtained from tables 1 to 10. These tables show the output of the questionnaires. How was the reliability and validity of the questionnaires done? In this regard, there is no explanation in the main text and without considering the reliability and validity of the questionnaires, the results will not be accepted.

9- The percentage of results for each question should be included in one column in all tables. Also, the “MEAN” equation must be defined.

10- The introduction regarding research methodology is very weak. The authors have only stated that they used a quantitative approach. A complete explanation of the method used as well as its advantages and disadvantages are essential. Also, in mixed methods research, there are reasons when using a quantitative approach or when using a qualitative approach. The complete steps of the method and the necessity of using the method are required.

 

11- Identification of obstacles in section 4.3. It is vague. Have previous questionnaires been used? Were the statistical population the same in both research phases? How has the reliability and validity of this section been done?

Author Response

Please kindly find the reply in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed the comments.

Author Response

Please see below

Author Response File: Author Response.docx