Business Models for Industrial Symbiosis: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper provides a literature review on business models for industrial symbiosis. The subject of the paper is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. The paper is well-structured and written. However, there are certain issues that need to be addressed.
1. Introduction should be expanded. It should describe the background of the investigated topic in more details, thus highlighting its importance.
2. The authors should clearly link the discussion with the research questions they formulated in the section 2.
3. The authors should highlight more clearly and discuss the research gaps identified based on this literature review.
4. The authors should define implications of the paper.
5. The authors should propose possible future research directions.
6. There are certain technical issues:
a) It is uncommon to have sub-headings without any text between them (e.g. between the heading 2 and sub-heading 2.1). There should be at least a couple of sentence between them as the introduction into the following. It also unusual to have sub-heading 2.1 and not the sub-heading 2.2. The same applies for the sub-heading 3.2.1.1.
b) References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated).
c) Some references are missing certain elements, such as page numbers (e.g. reference [33]).
d) Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper. Check the entire paper.
e) Figure 6 is not mentioned anywhere in the main text. The same applies for the Table 7. All tables and figures present in the paper must be mentioned somewhere in the main text.
Quality of English writing is acceptable.
Author Response
Attending the reviewer´s remarks, many changes an amendment have been made to the article.
All the changes can be noticed as they were written in blue letters in the new version of the manuscript. In the following table the reviewers´ observations, requiring changes or clarifications are answered.
Answers to Reviewer 1
|
Reviewer 1 |
Author |
|
General comments and suggestions |
|
|
1.Introduction should be expanded. It should describe the background of the investigated topic in more details, thus highlighting its importance. |
Considering this comment, we decided to add a paragraph to expand the importance of the topic. |
|
2.The authors should clearly link the discussion with the research questions they formulated in the section 2. |
We have made changes to ensure that the discussion is link with the research questions. |
|
3.The authors should highlight more clearly and discuss the research gaps identified based on this literature review. |
We have made changes to highlight the gaps. |
|
4. The authors should define implications of the paper. |
We have made changes to define implications |
|
5. The authors should propose possible future research directions. |
We have made changes to highlight future research. |
|
Technical issues: |
|
|
It is uncommon to have sub-headings without any text between them (e.g. between the heading 2 and sub-heading 2.1). There should be at least a couple of sentence between them as the introduction into the following. It also unusual to have sub-heading 2.1 and not the sub-heading 2.2. The same applies for the sub-heading 3.2.1.1. |
We rearrange the numeration of the sub-heading in heading 2 and heading 3. |
|
References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated). |
We have made changes with the abbreviate journal title. |
|
Some references are missing certain elements, such as page numbers (e.g. reference [33]). |
We added the page number. |
|
Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper. Check the entire paper. |
We define the Acronyms. |
|
Figure 6 is not mentioned anywhere in the main text. The same applies for the Table 7. All tables and figures present in the paper must be mentioned somewhere in the main text.
|
We have made changes to mentioned all the figures and tables. |
We have made moderate revisions to the manuscript in terms of language and grammar. Hoping that the new version of the article is satisfactory to you ant to the reviewers. We want to thank you for all the time dedicated to this work.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a bibliometric review of the evolution of business models for industrial symbiosis. The paper is well organized, and it can be published after major revisions. The following details should be focused on:
Please rewrite the title to be:
Business Models for Industrial Symbiosis: A Literature Review
The research motivations should be addressed in the introduction and framework for the systematic literature review. Please consult more literature that could support your research question. My suggestion is to look at the following:
Servitization 4.0 as a Trigger for Sustainable Business: Evidence from Automotive Digital Supply Chain (https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032217)
Improving Service Businesses of Industrial Companies Through Data: Conceptualization and Application (http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2022-2-302)
Softbots 4.0: Supporting Cyber-Physical Social Systems in Smart Production Management (http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2023-1-325)
In the methods, please better describe the keywords and the string behind the outcomes.
The outcomes are very well described.
In the discussion, please better highlight the main theoretical implications of your work.
In the conclusion, please remove the part that is covered in previous literature (e.g., We observed that tools and models have been developed to determine the potential of a region [35, 48, 51], to identify and evaluate possible symbiotic relationships [15, 16], and to analyze internal [44] and external [46] organizational changes. From the business model perspective, we found systematic experimentation methods for circular business models [25] and metrics to assess the circularity of materials [33]. The first focuses on explaining it from the conception of the business; the second focuses on evaluating its evolution and economic and environmental impact over time [2].
This part is related to the discussion, not the conclusion.
In the conclusion, you need to summarize outcomes, limitations, and future implications. Don't use a reference in the conclusion.
-
Author Response
Subject: Response to reviewers
Attending the reviewer´s remarks, many changes an amendment have been made to the article.
All the changes can be noticed as they were written in blue letters in the new version of the manuscript. In the following table the reviewers´ observations, requiring changes or clarifications are answered.
Answer to Reviewer 2
|
Reviewer 2 |
Author |
|
General comments and suggestions |
|
|
1.Please rewrite the title to be: Business Models for Industrial Symbiosis: A Literature Review |
We change the title as you suggested. |
|
2.The research motivations should be addressed in the introduction and framework for the systematic literature review. Please consult more literature that could support your research question. |
We have made the changes. |
|
3.In the methods, please better describe the keywords and the string behind the outcomes. |
We included the string. |
|
4.In the discussion, please better highlight the main theoretical implications of your work. |
According to the changes made in the article, is expected that theoretical implication is clearer now. |
|
5. In the conclusion, please remove the part that is covered in previous literature (e.g., We observed that tools and models have been developed to determine the potential of a region [35, 48, 51], to identify and evaluate possible symbiotic relationships [15, 16], and to analyze internal [44] and external [46] organizational changes. From the business model perspective, we found systematic experimentation methods for circular business models [25] and metrics to assess the circularity of materials [33]. The first focuses on explaining it from the conception of the business; the second focuses on evaluating its evolution and economic and environmental impact over time [2]. This part is related to the discussion, not the conclusion. |
We moved this part to the discussion and included a categorization to have a better understanding linked to the research questions. |
|
6. In the conclusion, you need to summarize outcomes, limitations, and future implications. Don't use a reference in the conclusion. |
We highlight the limitations, implications and outcomes. |
We have made moderate revisions to the manuscript in terms of language and grammar. Hoping that the new version of the article is satisfactory to you ant to the reviewers. We want to thank you for all the time dedicated to this work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The main objective of this review is to become familiar with the current state of the art of industrial symbiosis and its business models to identify areas of opportunity and knowledge gaps. Through a systematic review of the literature, a codification of the dimensions and categories of the literature was carried out, identifying various tools, theoretical models, simulation models and business models designed to implement and evaluate a transition toward industrial symbiosis. The manuscript is written well, and the following comments must be addressed.
The study's research gap identification and novelty are unclear and need to be revised.
State the main contribution of the present review.
Avoid initials with the last name of the first author in-text citation. Follow the journal guidelines.
In Figure 1, the right-side end blocks are not associated/linked to any of the previous items. Please correct it. Also, use the matching font style and size with the manuscript.
Figure 2, and 3 are incomplete - the legends and the words are missing. Provide both axis names and legend names properly. Avoid overlapping texts.
Avoid initials with the first author's last name in-text citation in Table -2.
Figures 4 (a) and (b) are not readable. Figure 4 must be replaced with a high-resolution figure.
Avoid four level subsections in the manuscript. e.g. “3.2.1.1.”
In Figure 7, provide the “%value” in the pie diagram.
Remove the dot operator between the text and in-text citation. “…are analyzed. [54].”, “barriers. [48].”, etc. Remove the dot operator between the text and in-text citation.
Avoid citations in conclusion.
Move the study's limitations to the last part of the “discussion” section.
Provide the additional material link in a single line (Do not split it - It is not working).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ck29kwtkebt894/55%20papers.xlsx?dl=0.
Change all caps to reference number 11.
Few references are with journals’ full names, and many are abbreviated. Make it uniform as per the journal guidelines.
English and grammar need to be improved.
Author Response
Subject: Response to reviewers
Attending the reviewer´s remarks, many changes an amendment have been made to the article.
All the changes can be noticed as they were written in blue letters in the new version of the manuscript. In the following table the reviewers´ observations, requiring changes or clarifications are answered.
Answer to Reviewer 3
|
Reviewer 3 |
Author |
|
General comments and suggestions |
|
|
1.The study's research gap identification and novelty are unclear and need to be revised. |
We have made the changes |
|
2.State the main contribution of the present review. |
We have made the changes. |
|
3.Avoid initials with the last name of the first author in-text citation. Follow the journal guidelines. |
We have made the changes. |
|
4.In Figure 1, the right-side end blocks are not associated/linked to any of the previous items. Please correct it. Also, use the matching font style and size with the manuscript. |
We have made the changes in the figure 1. |
|
5.Figure 2, and 3 are incomplete - the legends and the words are missing. Provide both axis names and legend names properly. Avoid overlapping texts. |
We added the legends in both figures. |
|
6.Avoid initials with the first author's last name in-text citation in Table -2. |
We have made the changes. |
|
7.Figures 4 (a) and (b) are not readable. Figure 4 must be replaced with a high-resolution figure. |
We have replaced the figure. |
|
8.Avoid four level subsections in the manuscript. e.g. “3.2.1.1.” |
We rearrange the numeration of the sub-heading in heading 3. |
|
9. In Figure 7, provide the “%value” in the pie diagram. |
We add the percentage value. |
|
10.Remove the dot operator between the text and in-text citation. “…are analyzed. [54].”, “barriers. [48].”, etc. Remove the dot operator between the text and in-text citation. |
We reviewed the whole document to avoid these mistakes. |
|
11. Avoid citations in conclusion. |
We moved this part to the discussion. |
|
12. Move the study's limitations to the last part of the “discussion” section. |
According to the changes made in this part is expected that this be clearer. |
|
13. Provide the additional material link in a single line (Do not split it - It is not working). |
We have made the changes. |
|
14. Change all caps to reference number 11. |
We have made the change. |
|
Few references are with journals’ full names, and many are abbreviated. Make it uniform as per the journal guidelines. |
We have made changes with the abbreviate journal title. |
We have made moderate revisions to the manuscript in terms of language and grammar. Hoping that the new version of the article is satisfactory to you ant to the reviewers. We want to thank you for all the time dedicated to this work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I was glad to review your manuscript. There is certainly potential in your paper. Still, I believe you need to invest some more effort to improve it before it is suitable for publication. I am listing few critical points that must be actioned to proceed to the next stage:
1. Be clear in the introduction about your goals, the context, and the motivation for your study. Notably, please adapt the academic style of writing as to a great extent you fail to do so.
2. Are you doing a literature review or literature review and bibliometric analysis? Please be clear on this from the beginning.
3. Your analyses seem to be pretty modest and descriptive. After several readings, I have an opinion that your text lacks scientific rigor and that you need to invest significantly more time to decipher the currently available knowledge base.
4. I strongly suggest using a topic dendrogram to map out the nesting of topics within each other. One example can be found here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/21582440221128179
5. Additionally, I strongly encourage to use of some of the established theoretical frameworks for the literature review. For instance, TCCM:https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280/full/html
6. Getting back to the introduction, please reconsider why this study is needed in the first place.
All in all, good luck with the work ahead of you.
Author Response
Subject: Response to reviewers
Attending the reviewer´s remarks, many changes an amendment have been made to the article.
All the changes can be noticed as they were written in blue letters in the new version of the manuscript. In the following table the reviewers´ observations, requiring changes or clarifications are answered.
Answer to Reviewer 4
|
Reviewer 4 |
Author |
|
General comments and suggestions |
|
|
1.Be clear in the introduction about your goals, the context, and the motivation for your study. Notably, please adapt the academic style of writing as to a great extent you fail to do so. |
According to the changes made in the article is expected that this aspect be clearer. |
|
2.Are you doing a literature review or literature review and bibliometric analysis? Please be clear on this from the beginning. |
We have made changes. |
|
3.Your analyses seem to be pretty modest and descriptive. After several readings, I have an opinion that your text lacks scientific rigor and that you need to invest significantly more time to decipher the currently available knowledge base. |
The proper changes were made, and we hope this aspect was made cleared. |
|
4.I strongly suggest using a topic dendrogram to map out the nesting of topics within each other. |
We emphasized the methodology used. we used the systematic review process proposed by Xiao & Watson (2019) |
|
5.Additionally, I strongly encourage to use of some of the established theoretical frameworks for the literature review. |
|
|
6. Getting back to the introduction, please reconsider why this study is needed in the first place. |
According to the changes made in the article is expected that this aspect be clearer. |
We have made moderate revisions to the manuscript in terms of language and grammar. Hoping that the new version of the article is satisfactory to you ant to the reviewers. We want to thank you for all the time dedicated to this work.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors incorporated all changes, please only consult mentioned literature in your references:
Servitization 4.0 as a Trigger for Sustainable Business: Evidence from Automotive Digital Supply Chain (https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032217)
Improving Service Businesses of Industrial Companies Through Data: Conceptualization and Application (http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2022-2-302)
Softbots 4.0: Supporting Cyber-Physical Social Systems in Smart Production Management (http://doi.org/10.24867/IJIEM-2023-1-325)
With these changes, the paper could be published.
Author Response
Dear Kittitat Leelarungroj
Assigned Editor
Sustainability
Article
Previous title: Business Model for Industrial Symbiosis: A necessary transformation. A Literature Review
New title: Business Models for Industrial Symbiosis: A Literature Review
Subject: Response to reviewers
Answer to Reviewer 2
|
Reviewer 2 |
Author |
|
General comments and suggestions |
|
|
1. The authors incorporated all changes, please only consult mentioned literature in your references |
We have included a paragraph with additional information including the requested references. You may find it in rows 57 to 65. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments addressed satisfactorily.
Minor corrections
Author Response
We did another revision for improve quality of English language.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to review a revised version of this manuscript. I appreciate your effort to improve the manuscript. Although progress and some improvements are made I still have some reservations:
1. I am still not convinced what is the added value (contribution) of your literature review. Even a quick browse in google scholar provides you with multiple SLRs performed in other prestigious journals. Please check: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=business+models+systematic+literature+review&hl=sr&as_sdt=0,5
Therefore, I must cast my doubts around the overall positioning and the core value of your manuscript.
2. Although you invested some effort in making your manuscript stronger, you only partially or shallowly addressed my prior comments. For instance, comments 1, 2, 3, and 4. I urge you to address them accordingly for the next round.
3. Is there any particular reason, why you do not have a single reference from 2023? Do you believe that you are reflecting on the latest research frontier in the observed domain?
Given all the above, and my previously risen reservations (that were not actioned), I must opt-in for another major revision recommendation.
Best of luck.
Author Response
Article
Previous title: Business Model for Industrial Symbiosis: A necessary transformation. A Literature Review
New title: Business Models for Industrial Symbiosis: A Literature Review
Subject: Response to reviewers
Answer to Reviewer 4
We apologize if our answers to the reviewer’s comments were not clear or if they didn’t solve the suggestions. The reviewer can be sure that we appreciate the effort and we have taken into account all the recommendations
|
Reviewer 4 |
Author |
|
General comments and suggestions |
|
|
1.Be clear in the introduction about your goals, the context, and the motivation for your study. Notably, please adapt the academic style of writing as to a great extent you fail to do so. Getting back to the introduction, please reconsider why this study is needed in the first place. |
.
We found several articles that express the relevance of this research, you can find them in green color in rows 52 to 76. And additional comment in rows 76 to 83. According to the changes made in the article is expected that this aspect be clearer. |
|
2.Are you doing a literature review or literature review and bibliometric analysis? Please be clear on this from the beginning. Additionally, I strongly encourage to use of some of the established theoretical frameworks for the literature review. |
We apologize for not be clear with the explanation of the methodology. We included a new paragraph in lines 92 to 96 where we specify the literature review analysis and bibliometric analysis based on the methodologies of several authors. |
|
3.Your analyses seem to be pretty modest and descriptive. After several readings, I have an opinion that your text lacks scientific rigor and that you need to invest significantly more time to decipher the currently available knowledge base. |
We apologize for the inconvenience of the last answer. A review of the literature is being conducted based on the methodology of Carvalho et al.This work is focused on business models for industrial symbiosis, therefore we exclude literature regarding business models that do not have that approach. The search was performed in scientific articles indexed in SCOPUS database, excluding non-indexed articles such as those that can be found in google scholar. |
|
4.I strongly suggest using a topic dendrogram to map out the nesting of topics within each other. |
We have included a dendrogram as you suggested page 10. |
|
5.Additionally, I strongly encourage to use of some of the established theoretical frameworks for the literature review. |
We have made the changes. You can identify those changes in chapters 1 and 2. |
|
Is there any particular reason, why you do not have a single reference from 2023? Do you believe that you are reflecting on the latest research frontier in the observed domain? |
We thank for the observation. The explanation is that this work was started last year. The search for literature was performed between May and August 2022. After that, we proceed to the analysis of the information, the writing of the article, several revisions of it, and the search of the proper journal/issue to be published, which ended in February of this year with the submission to the journal. That’s why there were no 2023 articles. However, thanks to the reviewer’s observation, we have updated the search until last week, and it has been stated in the article (line 119).. |
We have made a new deep revision to the manuscript in terms of language and grammar. Hoping that the new version of the article is satisfactory to you. We want to thank you for all the time dedicated to this work.
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for actioning my comments. I believe you are good to go at the moment.
Good luck.
