Integrating Circular Economy Principles in Modular Construction to Enhance Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is fine in general, it only needs clarification on some key points as well as some edition improvements. These points are summarised as follows,

§  Some sentences appear as stricken through in table 2 and paragraph above it is this writing style acceptable by the journal. Notably, the ‘issues’ stricken through seem relevant from the point of view of design.

§  Equally, the 20 implementation strategies mentioned in 4.3 needs some supporting argumentation. For example, for having been maintained, deleted, or merged with others, during the filtering process.

§  Is there a better format (more clear/efficient) to present the framework shown in Fig. 1? Some type of cross correlation chart or matrix?

§  English needs proof reading by a native speaker as there are grammar errors and repetition of terms.

Try and avoid repetition of terms and ideas and check the grammar and logic thoroughly

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the manuscript “Integration of Circular Economy Principles in Modular Construction to Enhance the Sustainability", I highlight next remarks:

·      Please stress main conclusions of the study in Section 1. 

·      Characterization of the notion “sustainability” is required in Section 2 to be used as reference when addressing subsections 2.1. and 2.2. Only general brushstrokes of a few sustainability aspects were provided therein. Sustainability is much more than reducing waste, energy consumption, carbon emissions and so on. Social, economic, environmental and institutional dimensions should be examined in the analysis conducted. Literature review should be focused on providing rationale in this direction. Furthermore, the linkage between circular economy and modular construction should be also strengthened. Gaps in the field were not clearly determined in Section 2. 

·      Specify objectives sought in Delphi-rounds, since research aim is ambiguous “in-depth analysis of the integration of CE principles for MC to achieve sustainability”. Further details of the content analysis performed are necessary. Although phases’ scope was described, it is vague how they were undertaken. The period of study (Delphi process) was not revealed. Selection criteria are vague since experience in industry/research was assessed together when fields are very different. Most experts belong to Academia, with scarce number of modular construction practitioners.  Because sustainability entails a broad set of topics, practice in this domain cannot be directly related to modular construction and therefore, this criterium cannot be suitable for determining experts. Two-year experience for experts seems insufficient to provide relevant insights about the subject addressed. 

·      Some issues from literature are mentioned in 4.1. without any detail about the process followed. Literature review should be described in detail.  Bases to build Figure 1 and Table 4 are unclear as well. 

·      Theoretical and practical contributions in the field were not found.  

·      Miscellaneous comments. 

o   Complete details of references #43 and 60. 

o   Acronyms must be defined at first appearance, i.e., 9-R.

o   Don´t write numbers both in letters and in figures, i.e., three (3).

o   Some misspelling mistakes were found, i.e., charted instead of chartered. 

o   Avoid strikethrough words in the text.

o   Tables and figures must be immediately shown after being referred in the text.  

Acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study that significantly contributes to the body of knowledge. The authors are encouraged to address these issues.

1.       The topic seems incomplete. Is it possible to delete ‘the’ from the topic? The topic could read as follows: Integrating circular economy principles in modular construction to enhance sustainability.

2.       The aim must be stated in the abstract before the methodology is introduced. “This study aims to bridge this research gap” is not an aim.

3.       Lines 57-61 must be checked against repetitions.

4.       Please number the research questions instead of leaving them in bullets.

5.       The last research question could be reframed as follows: ‘What strategies could assist in integrating CE principles in MC to achieve sustainability’?

6.       Lines 99-100 do not read well.

7.       Under section 3.4, an explanation as to why the number of interviewees kept decreasing through the three rounds of the Delphi must be provided. Is it normal for this to happen in a Delphi study?

8.       The population from which the interviewees were sought was not properly defined.

9.       There must be a section under the methodology that discusses the methods of data analyses before the findings are presented.

10.   Please check line 320 and correct this error. “Finally thirteen (30)……….”.

11.   The paper must be proofread to correct several issues.

There are many grammatical issues in the manuscript that must be resolved. Proofreading the manuscript must be able to resolve this issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article titled “Integration of Circular Economy Principles in Modular Construction to Enhance the Sustainability” is well written. The research is novel and significant, which will be a good contribution to the field when published. The objectives are well-defined, and the methods are described well. The results are presented in a scientific manner. Discussions are reported to comply with the quality standards of a research article. Only the conclusions need to be written in bullet points for better clarity for the readers. I suggest accepting the manuscript after modifications to the conclusions section.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

In general, the topic is good. However, the paper lacks following scientific basis and scientific academic writing. The authors have to do more efforts to improve their paper. Here, are some comments.

Abstract:

·        The abstract is not clear. It must be re-write to show the goals, gaps, and contributions. Further, in the abstract what is meant by 9-R principals?

Introduction:

·        What is meant by 3R principals, 9R, 10R, and 11R techniques?

·        The introduction is not informative. It lists some advantages of MC and CE. How these themes contribute to sustainability?   

·        The gaps and the importance of the study are not clear at all in the introduction.

Literature review:

·        The literature review section illustrates advantages of MC and CE. However, the contributions of the prior studies are not listed. Further, their gaps are not presented. Accordingly, what the authors intended to address is not mentioned.

Methodology:

·        The methodology is the core of any study. However, in the present paper it is very poor. The authors should identify a) the literature findings and how they have been reached, b) defining their methodology for checking the literature findings based on Delphi, c) why Delphi is suitable for their study, d) the purpose of Delphi, e) how the criteria for choosing the experts have been determined, and f) the rounds of Delphi. All of these points should be justified. Notably, Table is very difficult for being understood. You can review the prior work in this respect to describe your methodology based on Delphi.

Findings:

·        The presentation of the findings is very poor. You mention for instance four and (04) issue. This is not a well academic writing. Further, you list in italic letters, bold letter, and through-lined letters. You must re-formulate your description. The same problems appear in Table 2. For instance, you can mark each criterion in Table 2 by *, **, etc…

·        "The literature outcomes indicated twenty-two (22) issues in MC for sustainability" where these issues in the paper?

·        "In Round II Phase 02, ten (10) issues were omitted due to a lack of 75% (cut-off)". What this 75% cut-off. What is your reference?

·        Regarding the need for more……………….E1 stated that. What is the relation between this paragraph and the prior and the next ones.

·        The previous mentioned points are the same in all the sub-sections of the methodology. The authors are not able to differ between the findings and their discussions. This makes the paper extremely poor.

Discussion:

·        The section lists some of the findings, which are not well presented in their section, without any discussion in view of the prior literature.  

Conclusion:

·        This section does not summarize the paper. Further, the implications and limitations are not clear.

The English language must be revised 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the revised manuscript “Integrating Circular Economy Principles in Modular Construction to Enhance the Sustainability", I highlight next remarks still unaddressed in the text:

·      Subsections 2.1. and 2.2. should be related to the notion “sustainability” previously characterized. The connection between issues listed in Table 1 and sustainability is vague. Literature review should identify gaps in knowledge to be bridged. The linkage between circular economy and modular construction should be strengthened. 

·      What is the objective of conducting the analysis depicted in lines 202-203? Searching criteria on the basis of keywords shortlisted remains unclear, i.e., use of Boolean operators. Moreover, results of the search performed and refinement process were not revealed. Further details of the content analysis performed are necessary.  Relate goals of each Delphi phase with research questions exposed in lines 76-83. The period of the Delphi process was not revealed.

·      Some issues from literature are mentioned in 4.1. without any detail about the selection process followed. Bases to build Figure 1 and Table 4 are unclear as well. 

·      Miscellaneous comments. 

o   Use proper citations in Table 1. 

o   Complete details of references #50, 73, and 91.

Some misspelling mistakes were found, i.e., charted instead of chartered

Acceptable

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank You.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for taking the time to address all the issues I raised earlier. I am satisfied with the way you have addressed my comments. 

The quality has improved. However, there are some small errors that could be rectified. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for your efforts to improve the paper. The paper has been improved. However, the following comments have to be addressed, particularly the paper includes many information and findings without proper arrangement or presenting. This causes the reader unable to extract the findings and conclusions.  

1.     What are the research engines that have been used relying upon your identified keywords?

2.     I can not find Table 1 in the paper, although it has been mentioned in line 315 and 316.

3.     You have not mentioned anything about Table 2 in the paragraphs of the paper.

4.     The methodology includes many steps; so, I recommend supporting it using a flowchart.

5.     Findings:

·        The authors must introduce what this section will introduce or what its content.  

·        The titles of the sub-headings are too long. It must be re-presented in a short manner.

·        Presenting the findings using * or ** cause significant fuzziness. Further, there is a difference between the findings in lines from 322 to 328 and Table 3. So, you have to find another way to present your findings.

·        The presentation of the findings is extremely difficult for being understood.    

6.     Discussion:

·        The authors must introduce what this section will introduce or what its content.  

·        The titles of the sub-headings are too long. It must be re-presented in a short manner.

Can be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the second revised manuscript “Integrating Circular Economy Principles in Modular Construction to Enhance the Sustainability", I highlight next remarks still unaddressed:

·      Searching and refinement process of the literature review conducted should be further developed. 

·      Selection criteria of the 22 issues referred in line 383 are unknown. 

·      Miscellaneous comments. 

- Use proper numbered citations in Table 1, removing its footnote.

-  Standardize the style of all tables

acceptable

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for your efforts to improve the paper. Please address all the comments. Further, describe in your responses (illustrate the lines) and highlight in the paper what has been done to address the comments.

1.     The methodology includes many steps; so, I recommend supporting it using a flowchart. This comment from the prior round.

2.     What are the research engines that have been used relying upon your identified keywords?. This comment from the prior round.

3.     Revise Table 2 and improve its presentation.

4.     I struggle to read and understand your findings and discussion.  

5.     Section 4.1. as demonstrated with the “*” mark (i.e.,*Extensive factory coordination and communication). In Table 3 I4, I7 are marked with *. However, you have not mentioned them in your explaining. Further, in Section 4.1. “grey” highlight (i.e., Skilled Labours). By reviewing Table 3, nothing has been marked as grey. You must be accurate and find suitable way for presenting your finding. What this ü means in Table 3.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx