Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper concerns an essential topic of shared economy impact on sustainable development. It provides a systematic review of literature based on WoS.

The paper is engaging and well-written in general. However, I recommend professional proofreading (including figures).

Please find below some suggestions to improve the paper:

General comments:

The pages and lines numbering is missing.

The tables and figures should appear after being mentioned in the text.

Introduction

“public tragedy”- the translation probably is not adequate – have the authors in mind the system archetype: “Tragedy of the commons? The term also appears in the discussion section.

Materials

This section should be named Materials and Methods

The method could be better described. For instance, the criteria of excluding the irrelevant papers are missing (Authors excluded not only duplicates).

There is irrelevant information included, such as functionalities of NVivo.

Discussion

Section 5.2 Further discussion is rather a literature review. I understand the idea of providing the discussion background, but this logical construction does not follow the expected paper structure. In the discussion, should not appear any new literature citations.

Table 7.

It would be interesting to relate Sustainable development dimensions and indicators to SDG’s aims, targets, and indicators according to Agenda 2030.

Table 7 lacks the headings.

 

Some paragraphs are in an inappropriate place in a text (instead of in an introduction section, it should be placed in the method section, and another Instead, in the method section, it should be included in the conclusions section, etc.  – not provided line numbering)

Author Response

Please see the attachment。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is an excellent research work which systematically reviews the impact of sharing economy under a sustainable development framework. The authors have made serious efforts through this research work to reach the conclusion, among others, that the debates about the impact of sharing economy are very intense and fierce and will continue for the foreseeable future. As such, this article will be an important addition to the existing literature on the subject. However, it may be suggested that the Sub-title under No. 2. Material may be replaced by Methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors adequately addressed my remarks and significantly improved the manuscript.