Evaluating the Enablers of Green Entrepreneurship in Circular Economy: Organizational Enablers in Focus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work tries to assess the enablers of green entrepreneurship in CE by proposing an MCDM-based approach. The idea is interesting but the manuscript needs to be improved.
a. Abbreviations should be spelled out both in the abstract and main text.
b. Introduction section: here, you should define the problem, address the significance, review the applications, and delineate the contributions and research goals.
c. How can you address uncertainty within your decision making framework?
d. The validation of the results as well as comparative analysis should be provided.
e. Any sensitivity analysis section to help managers learn better about the role of parameters in decision-making?
f. Why BWM as the MCDM? for example why not ANP?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some English/grammatical errors in the text. The authors must review the English/writing of the text.
Author Response
Point 1: Abbreviations should be spelled out both in the abstract and main text.
Response 1: The mentioned corrections were made.
Point 2: Introduction section: here, you should define the problem, address the significance, review the applications, and delineate the contributions and research goals.
Response 2: The introduction is improved.
Point 3: How can you address uncertainty within your decision-making framework?
Point 4: The validation of the results as well as comparative analysis should be provided.
Point 5: Any sensitivity analysis section to help managers learn better about the role of parameters in
decision-making?
Responses 3, 4, 5: The validation in section 4.3 was added to the article and explanations related to 3, 4 and 5 points were provided.
Point 6: Why BWM as the MCDM? for example why not ANP?
Response 6: The most crucial advantage of BWM as one of the MCDM techniques compared to the AHP and ANP is more accuracy in the comparisons due to the reduction of the total number of comparisons and the decrease in inconsistencies in the results.
Point 7: here are some English/grammatical errors in the text. The authors must review the English/writing of the text.
Response 7: English/grammatical errors throughout the text were corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report. Minor corrections.
The manuscript “Evaluation the Enablers of Green Entrepreneurship in Circular Economy: Organizational Enablers in Focus” analyzes organizational enablers for green entrepreneurship in manufacturing SMEs in Iran. Organizational enablers were extracted by reviewing the literature and then, using the viewpoints of active experts in different industries in SMEs, they were classified. In the next step, the "Best Worst Method" was employed to prioritize the identified enablers (5 factors) and sub-enablers (20 factors). Using the "Interpretive Structural Modeling" method, the contextual hierarchical relationships between these factors were identified and the corresponding model was presented. Using MICMAC analysis, driving and dependence powers of organizational enablers have been calculated and the enablers were clustered
This review study deals with interesting and very up-to-date theme. The results/conclusions are useful for solving actual ‘real life’ problems regarding CE entrepreneurship. The study is scientifically sound and relevant for the field. The text is clear. Presentation is well-structured.
The paper is appropriate for this Special Issue of Sustainability Journal.
Abstract is informative as it covers all of the main points of the work.
‘Green Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Circular Economy’ can be removed from the keywords as these terms are already mentioned in the title.
Introduction and Literature Review are consistent and informative. Introduction is brief. The provided review of literature is clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field. Authors identified the gap in knowledge and highlighted it. There is no need for abridging nor changing the text.
Materials and methods chapter is clear and understandable. However, I would suggest changing of the chapter title into ‘Methodology’ since there is no traditional experimental work in this study.
Results chapter and the following Discussion chapter provide a clear presentation of correlated results. The discussion is scientifically sound. The experimental design (i.e. analytical modeling employed) is appropriate to test the hypothesis as there are no identified errors of fact and logic.
The conclusions are adequate. However, I would suggest placing them in separate chapter to increase their visibility.
The cited references are appropriate and up-to-date (within the last 5 years or so). Used literature is relevant. There is no excessive number of self-citations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language is good; however, the text should be read one more time to exclude all typing mistakes.
Author Response
Point 1: ‘Green Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Circular Economy’ can be removed from the keywords as these terms are already mentioned in the title.
Response 1: ‘Green Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Circular Economy’ are removed from the keywords.
Point 2: Introduction is brief.
Response 2: The Introduction is improved.
Point 3: Materials and methods chapter is clear and understandable. However, I would suggest changing of the chapter title into ‘Methodology’ since there is no traditional experimental work in this study.
Response 3: the chapter title changed to ‘Methodology’.
Point 4: The conclusions are adequate. However, I would suggest placing them in separate chapter to increase their visibility.
Response 4: Conclusions and implications are presented in section 5.4 according to the journal's format.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The comments requiring your kind attention are found in the pdf attachment. Please kindly use Microsoft Edge to open the pdf.
Please kindly thoroughly go through English grammar and sentence structures.
Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Dear Authors
It appears to me there is frequent usage of the present perfect and past perfect tenses. In my humble opinion, in many instances, you could use the past tense.
Some journals recommend the present tense unless the past tense is clearly required.
I leave tenses to your wisdom.
Thank you.
Author Response
Point 1: The comments requiring your kind attention are found in the pdf attachment. Please kindly use Microsoft Edge to open the pdf.
Response 1: All corrections mentioned in the file were corrected. The corrections include the followings:
- The abstract was modified.
- The introduction and the literature improved.
- The Delphi method was completed.
- English/grammatical errors throughout the text were corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood work.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind feedback. We asked a native English language proofreader to check the revised draft.
