Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a literature review on the connection between circular economy (CE) and solid waste management (SWM) within the context of bibliometric connectivity. However, the manuscript's organization is lacking, and it would greatly benefit from a comprehensive restructuring to enhance its overall quality including “Introduction”, “Review methodology”, “Results and Analysis”, and “Discussions and Conclusion”. Furthermore, listed below are the major concerns and recommendations. Kindly consider these suggestions for revision and improvement.

Major concern: Using Figure 1 without permission would constitute plagiarism. It is crucial to note that authors must obtain permission from the figure's original creators if they intend to use it in another source. Alternatively, authors should consider creating their own figures when necessary.

Abstract: The abstract was not particularly clear, especially concerning lines 14-15, which read, "Some findings point to greater collaboration between Italy and Bolivia, followed by China and Malaysia. However, they move away from the traditional axes as the United States and Canada." This passage may confuse readers as to why the author exclusively mentions these countries. Please revise this section to provide a clearer explanation of the findings presented in this work.

Introduction: The introduction was poorly written, lacking essential information regarding the quantity of solid waste generation and its environmental risks. Furthermore, the authors missed an opportunity to introduce readers to the concept of a circular economy, which can effectively reduce the consumption of natural resources and mitigate waste generation. For a clearer discussion, the author should provide significant details within lines 45-56, rather than presenting only general information.

Line 33: The authors reference the population increase and its impact on landfill depletion. Could you please provide more detailed information on how this depletion occurs?

Theoretical basis: This section must be combined with an introduction.

Results and analysis:

Figure 4: Due to limitations in the graph area, it is more appropriate to use journal abbreviation names rather than displaying their full names in Figure 4.

Figure 5: For a clearer visualization of the top ten countries that have published the most articles related to CE and SWM, it will benefit the reader if the authors include a legend or list of these countries alongside Figure 5.

Figure 7: The legend or list of top countries collaboration are needed to depict alongside figure 7.

Line 364-367: This paragraph should be relocated to the start of subsection 4.1.

Please provide the discussion and conclusion.

Other mistake:

- Abbreviations appear without an initial declaration of their full words, for instance “GRS”. It is important to emphasize that all abbreviations used in the main text should include their full word at their initial mention.

- Please check all chemical formulas and revise all errors, for instance line 433: “CO2-eq”.

- There are many errors in text citations, for instance line 420 “Villalba Ferreira et al.” it should be “Villalba Ferreira et al. [54]”. Please kindly revise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are enclosed

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this manuscript has undergone revisions in response to the reviewer's comments, there are some errors that persist in the main text. To enhance the overall quality of this manuscript, the authors are encouraged to meticulously review and implement the suggestions provided below. 

 

Abstract:

The abstract of this revised manuscript has been corrected well. However, your result in line (14-17) is hard to understand, you may provide how and why there is a need to create indicators to facilitate the evaluation of SWM.

 

Minor concern

 

·       In line 31: Repetition of using and. You may use comma between Population [4] and urban.

 

·       In line 428: Spacing before and after subsection 4.2 should be the same spacing as other section.  

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer. Thank you very much for your comments in this second round. They were indeed very important details that will contribute to a better job. Below are the corrections in red and the appropriate indications in the article (line number).

 

Abstract:

The abstract of this revised manuscript has been corrected well. However, your result in line (14-17) is hard to understand, you may provide how and why there is a need to create indicators to facilitate the evaluation of SWM.

Authors' reply:

Thank you for your comment on the Abstract. The way it was presented, it was really confusing for the reader. Below is the new Abstract, rewritten according to the suggested guidelines. In the article, the changes are between lines 14 and 19.

The aim of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis of the research published between 2012 and 2022 on solid waste management (SWM) and the circular economy (CE) using bibliometrics. To this end, the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases were used as a source of publications. Processing was conducted using the R language and the Bibliometrix software package. A theoretical basis was built on the terms in order to present their interactions in the context of scientific debate. The results show that there is a need to create indicators to facilitate the evaluation of SWM. They can be identified from the data collected during the management process. Examples include the volume of material collected, operating costs and recycling rates. Indicators are important in the waste management process because they help to quantify the effectiveness of the management practices adopted, help to identify areas that need improvement, make it possible to monitor the progress of work over time and the achievement of previously set targets. Two other important results are the maximization of the use of resources by increasing the useful life of the product and the emergence of new sustainable business models, with recycling as a driving force. Finally, and perhaps the most disruptive discovery, is the integration of SWM and the CE with blockchain technology to reduce the levels of waste production. This shows how new technologies can be used as partners in solving complex problems, such as solid waste (SW).

 

Minor concern: 

In line 31: Repetition of using and. You may use comma between Population [4] and urban.

Authors' reply:

Thank you for pointing that out. It really went unnoticed. After some adjustments to the formatting of the line spacing, this topic is now on line 32 of the article.

"Population [4], urban and consumption growth [5] are factors that burden the economy with disproportionately high levels of waste flows, generating waste management costs and limiting the ability to properly dispose of these materials."

 

In line 428: Spacing before and after subsection 4.2 should be the same spacing as other section. 

Authors' reply:

In fact, the spacing was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. Due to some adjustments made to the line spacing, this subsection is now located on line 427 of the article.