The Consumer’s Role in the Transition to the Circular Economy: A State of the Art Based on a SLR with Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the paper titled 'The consumer's role in the transition to the circular economy: a state of the art based on a SLR with bibliometric analysis' and here are my comments to improve the manuscript:

1. Please change the title from 'Article' to 'Review' paper to accurately represent the type of paper.
2. In the Abstract (Line 10-11), the sentence '…consumer's desire to purchase circular products, given the increased price associated with them..' appears contradictory. The results from the review are unclear. Please provide a brief conclusion summarizing the main findings of this review.
3. The Introduction section is too short. It is suggested to expand it to 1.5-2 pages with the following structure:
• Opening statement: Highlight the importance or significance of the review.
• Background & context: Provide an overview of the area of study, historical development, and discuss relevant previous research or studies.
• Objective: Clearly state the main purpose of the review, including the synthesis of existing literature, identified gaps, and recent developments.
• Scope and exclusion criteria: Define the scope of the review and briefly state the criteria used or sources included in the review.
• Methodology: Provide a very brief description of the methodology used in the review.
• Organization of the paper: Highlight the main sections and what each section will cover.
• Significance: Explain the significance of the review findings and its contribution to the field.
• Limitations: Address any limitations of the review.
• Brief summary: Provide an overview of what to expect from the review.
4. In Line 28-34, some references are missing. Please include the following relevant article in your area of research: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168773
5. Make sure to expand acronyms such as LE, SME, and EA throughout the manuscript for better clarity.
6. In Figure 1, change the color of fonts in blue boxes to black for improved visibility.
7. Figure 3 is confusing and contains Portuguese texts. Ensure that it is self-explanatory, easy to understand, and all text is in English.
8. In Figure 4, choose the right font color for better readability. The texts in yellow boxes are hardly legible.
9. Rename Section 4 to 'Results and Discussion' to accurately represent its content.
10. Verify the numbering of figures to avoid repetition. Ensure that each figure is uniquely numbered.
11. In the Conclusion section, structure it as follows:
• Summary of Main Findings
• Synthesis of the Literature
• Addressing the Review's Objective
• Implications and Applications
• Strengths and Limitations of the Review
• Gaps and Future Research Directions
• Conclusion Statement
• Final Thoughts
• Recommendations (if any)
12. Follow MDPI guidelines for referencing.

By implementing these suggestions, the manuscript will become more comprehensive, well-structured, and clear to the readers.

There are some sentences which are difficult to interpret. Please ask a native English speaker to thoroughly proof-read your manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions, and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered the Reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been improved.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I believe this article's writing doesn't exhibit significant issues. With some adjustments to rectify minor oversights, I think this piece has the potential for publication.

 

Regarding Line 138 where you wrote, "Only articles with a score equal to or less than 30 points were included, thus 688 articles were excluded." Shouldn't articles with a score less than 30 points be excluded? It seems like this should be written in reverse, that means more than 30 points were included.

 

Why were an additional 13 articles included in the final step? Are these articles from authoritative indexes? Can they be found through the reference list, indicating whether they represent a gap in the comprehensiveness of the earlier search steps?

 

I feel that the discussion from Line 156 to 165 isn't particularly necessary. The information about the journals doesn't seem relevant to the topic you're elucidating.

 

Details are lacking in the descriptions of Figures 5 and 6, as well as in the related textual explanations within the article.

 

Most of the images in this article haven't been optimized for reader comprehension; the text is often too small to discern clearly.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions, and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered the Reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been improved.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please address these points:

1. "Implementing the Circular Economy (CE) is largely a mirage." Back this up by referring to Circularity gap report please (intro).

2. Provide key results in the abstract.

3. Rename section 4 as results and discussion.

4. Add more references to each sectin of section 4 to provide a real discussion.

5. Use only your own words in the conclusions section and transfer all references to discussion section. Provide suggestions for future research in this section.

Appropriate.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for taking the time to review this paper and provide positive feedback, useful suggestions, and valuable criticisms. We have carefully considered the Reviewer’s comments and believe the paper has been improved.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done required corrections.

Some minor edits-typos, grammatical errors 

Reviewer 2 Report

While some issues with textual descriptions and visualizations have not been thoroughly addressed, I am inclined to recommend publication in its current form. I leave it to the discretion of the author whether to further address these issues through revisions.