Web 3.0 and Sustainability: Challenges and Research Opportunities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the introduction, the authors claim that "there is limited research that provides a comprehensive description of sustainability issues related to Web 3.0." However, there is a comprehensive body of literature on the relationship between industry 4.0/cyberphysical systems and sustainability. This may not be identical but overlaps with Web 3.0 as described by the authors as both of these platform technologies make use of artifical intelligence. They should take account of that existing literature base.
For an overview see, e. g., Furstenau, L.B.; Sott, M.K.; Kipper, L.M.; Machado, E.L.; Lopez-Robles, J.R.; Dohan, M.S.; Martin, M.J.C.; Zahid, A.; Abbasi, Q.H.; Imran, M.A. Link between sustainability and industry 4.0: Trends, challenges and new perspectives. IEEE Access 2020, 140079–140096. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3012812
on chapter 3:
The term mental models in chapter 3 is not defined and it is unclear how it is related to the topic. As there is a research area on mental models (in particular, rooted in economics and management science as well as business pedagogy), the usage and relevance in the context of the paper should be made clear
Judging from the title of the chapter and the position in the overall text, this chapter should provide a survey of the literature on the link between Web 3.0 (or related concepts) and sustainability, but the authors state the goals of the paper instead. The literature which is mentioned does not suffice in terms of a literature review as the reader is not informed about gaps in the literature and how this work contributes to filling them
The relation to SDGs is not well motivated as it is confined to the UN's tole of promoting sustainability without pointing out how Web 3.0 could be related to these goals in particular
It is unclear why "a limited focus on sustainability" is the aim of the paper considering the title of the publication
on chapter 4:
this collocation of aspects (with irritating bullet points instead of a flowing text) is not clear as regards the derived conclusions
on chapter 5:
Statements such as "Web 3.0 offers promising technologies that have the potential to significantly contribute to achieving SDG" need to be backed up by evidence
on chapter 7:
As it is, the paper does not ground the arguments in existing literature well which it should do by pointing out gaps and contributing to fill them. If it is supposed to be a review of the literature, this would have to be done in a more rigorous manner. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 would probably have to be combined as the review missing in chapter 3 is partially delivered in chapters 4 and 5. It is unclear why the latter is labelled "Web 3.0 and Sustainability Future Research" when it assesses the relevant literature but does not discuss gaps and desirable avenues for future research.
Overall, the goal as well as the contribution is not made clear enough. The paper should clearly identify itself as a literature review, deliver on this and make clear what its contribution is
Term "zero-trust architectures in Web 3.0" is not defined (even if only in a table, the reader should be able to understand what it means). This table should be replaced by a chapter describing which areas research should move into (this would then be "future research in Web 3.0 and sustainability", see above), the brevity of the table and many undefined terms make the overall merit of the paper hard to acknowledge.
Provide conclusions at the end of the chapters and use concise language, including definitions
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We want to thank you for your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. We appreciate your giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. We appreciate that you took the time and care to provide us with specific references.
We have tried our best to address your comments and suggestions. In the following paragraphs, we point-by-point explain how we addressed each specific comment and suggestion. We have highlighted the next in green color where we have made changes in the manuscript document. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers have helped us revise the paper. As a result, this study has significantly improved. We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed the comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from the reviewers.
The response document is attached.
Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript.
On behalf of all authors,
Dr. Shekhar Rathor
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I evaluate the article positively, but it requires supplementation. The authors write that their research aims to “understand the current state of sustainability issues related to Web 3.0 and provide guidance for future research. The aim of this research paper is to explore the potential benefits and sustainability challenges of Web 3.0, shedding light on the path towards a greener digital future.” The goal is general and as such has been essentially achieved. The authors focused on the key elements of Web 3.0 and their functions. The text not only describes these technologies, but also analyzes how they can impact sustainability, making it timely and relevant for researchers on this topic. The identified challenges related to energy, e-waste, and legal and regulatory issues are particularly important and deserve further research.
My comment on the article:
1. The text focuses mainly on the analysis of literature, there is no direct empirical data, such as surveys, interviews or analyzes of statistical data. This could strengthen the authors' arguments by providing concrete evidence to support their claims. A good solution to the lack of empirical data would be to analyze case studies or examples of real Web 3.0 applications that contribute to sustainability and show how they specifically contribute (rather than just a general statement that they contribute).
2. The authors effectively identify the main challenges of Web 3.0 in the context of sustainable development. However, a more detailed analysis of these challenges, taking into account different perspectives and contexts, supported by empirical data, would be a valuable addition.
3. The last part of the text summarizes the potential of Web 3.0 for sustainable development. There are no specific recommendations for practitioners and policymakers on how to deal with the challenges of Web 3.0.
4. The summary in a scientific article is intended to provide the reader with a concise overview of the main objectives, methods, results and conclusions of the presented study. Summary missing:
• Methods: The abstract does not contain information about specific research methods used by the authors. It is important for the reader to understand what methods have been used to study the concepts of Web 3.0 and sustainability.
• Results: Although the abstract states that it examines the current state of Web 3.0 research, it does not provide specific results from these analyses.
• Conclusions: The abstract lacks a clear summary of the authors' main conclusions resulting from the research conducted.
• Significance of the study: lack of information about the significance of the study for a given field of science or practice.
• Limitations of the study: no information about study limitations that may affect the interpretation of the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We want to thank you for your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. We appreciate your giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. We appreciate that you took the time and care to provide us with specific references.
We have tried our best to address your comments and suggestions. In the following paragraphs, we point-by-point explain how we addressed each specific comment and suggestion. We have highlighted the next in green color where we have made changes in the manuscript document. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers have helped us revise the paper. As a result, this study has significantly improved. We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed the comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from the reviewers.
The response document is attached.
Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript.
On behalf of all authors,
Dr. Shekhar Rathor
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for submitting your comprehensive work on the sustainability implications of Web 3.0. Your paper covers a variety of aspects of this emerging technology and provides valuable insights into its potential contributions to sustainable development. Here are some comments and suggestions to help refine and enhance your paper:
Intro
- The introduction could benefit from a clearer and more concise definition of Web 3.0 and a sharper focus on the paper’s main aims and objectives.
- Avoid redundancy in the description of Web 3.0 and its features. Aim for clarity and conciseness in defining the key components and their relevance to sustainability.
Literature review
- Elaborate on the existing literature that explores the intersection of Web 3.0 and sustainability. Clearly identify the gaps in the current body of knowledge and articulate how your research aims to fill these gaps.
Structure
- The paper could benefit from a more explicit structure with clearly defined sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Web 3.0 Components, Sustainability Implications, Challenges, Opportunities, and Conclusion.
- Ensure a logical flow of ideas, and avoid repetition. Each section should build on the previous one and contribute to the overall narrative.
- While the paper mentions various components of Web 3.0 like Blockchain, Metaverse, and AI, an in-depth analysis of how each component specifically contributes to or hinders sustainability would strengthen the paper.
- Provide real-world examples or case studies for each component to illustrate their practical implications for sustainability.
Sustainability
- Delve deeper into the specific ways Web 3.0 could impact the different dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social).
- Discuss potential trade-offs and conflicts of interest that might arise between these different dimensions.
- Expand on the challenges and risks associated with the adoption of Web 3.0, specifically focusing on the potential negative impacts on sustainability.
- Discuss mitigation strategies and potential solutions to address these challenges.
Others
- Clearly outline the opportunities presented by Web 3.0 in advancing sustainability and achieving SDGs.
- Offer specific recommendations for different stakeholders, including policymakers, businesses, and technology developers, on harnessing these opportunities.
- Summarize the key findings and their implications succinctly.
- Clearly outline avenues for future research, offering specific questions or areas that warrant further exploration.
- Conduct a thorough proofreading to eliminate any grammatical, syntactical, or typographical errors.
- Ensure consistent formatting throughout the paper, including headings, subheadings, figures, and tables.
By addressing these comments and suggestions, you will be able to present a more polished, coherent, and impactful piece of research. We look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We want to thank you for your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. We appreciate your giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. We appreciate that you took the time and care to provide us with specific references.
We have tried our best to address your comments and suggestions. In the following paragraphs, we point-by-point explain how we addressed each specific comment and suggestion. We have highlighted the next in green color where we have made changes in the manuscript document. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers have helped us revise the paper. As a result, this study has significantly improved. We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed the comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from the reviewers.
The response document is attached.
Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript.
On behalf of all authors,
Dr. Shekhar Rathor
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The topic addressed is interesting and corresponds to the current interests of researchers at the global level.
Nevertheless, I note some observations and recommendations for the purpose of improving the manuscript:
- Opinions are usually short articles that reflect the author’s viewpoints on a particular subject, technique, or recent findings. The current manuscript is rather long for this type of article. If it is possible, maybe the authors manage to compress the manuscript a little.
- I would move the sentence "Some of the key Web 3.0 components are summarized in Table 1" (lines 113-114) before the table (starting with line 161).
- In line 261, the authors note "The literature search results show that there are not many research papers that are specifically related to Web 3.0 and sustainability". Can the authors specify how they obtained the results? By manual search or using a specific software? I think that such clarification could be useful for readers. The explanation would also be useful for the information selected in table no. 3.
- Between lines 271 - 317, it seems excessive how many times "this research paper" was used. The authors must find another form. (Perhaps something like: "In the work [...] is presented ...".)
- References must be ordered according to MDPI requirements.
Thank you!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We want to thank you for your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. We appreciate your giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. We appreciate that you took the time and care to provide us with specific references.
We have tried our best to address your comments and suggestions. In the following paragraphs, we point-by-point explain how we addressed each specific comment and suggestion. We have highlighted the next in green color where we have made changes in the manuscript document. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers have helped us revise the paper. As a result, this study has significantly improved. We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed the comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from the reviewers.
The response document is attached.
Thank you for allowing us to revise our manuscript.
On behalf of all authors,
Dr. Shekhar Rathor
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for incorporating the changes, I do not have any further comments and wish you lots of feedback from scientific audiences
Reviewer 3 Report
I do not have other comments. The paper can be accepted now.
