Influence of Eco-Innovation and Recycling on Raw Material Consumption; Econometric Approach in the Case of the European Union

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for your article, the introduction issue is described sufficiently without any comments. the introductory issue describes the main essentials of the issue.

In part of materials and method I have question. Will it be possible to found out date from year 2020 and mainly in 2021? Because during these years start covid problematic and the data for models will be differently that in period 2010 to 2019. If will not be possible to found out, it is not problem. It is idea for next research.

The article represent very interesting model and very interesting result, mainly validates hypothesis about influence recycling and eco-innovation for material footprint but the information is not old. We know about it. Without innovation and recycling is not possible to decrease material footprint. The authors have done a lot of work but I don’t see why the have done the research.

But I agree with publication after authors describe why they use only data from period 2010 to 2019. The had prepare validation base on information not from all EU27 but only from Romania for 2021.

Author Response

Thank you for your meaningful observations and kind suggestions.

The point-by point response to your comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting and well-executed article. However, I have a few comments. They mainly concern graphical presentations. On:

- in graph 1, the values above the bars are difficult to read;

- figures 2 and 3 lack a legend. How is the reader supposed to know which part of the box means what? Is the point in the center of the box the mean or standard deviation, etc.?

- in graph 4 we are again dealing with the lack of readability. I think Autors should increase the font size and it will be ok.

In addition, the literature review is well done but contains few references to worldwide sources. There are only 29 items in References.

Author Response

Thank you for your meaningful observations and kind suggestions.

The point-by-point response to your comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Author/s

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript draft. It is an important and interesting topic, and it does appear that the authors have novel and interesting results to report in the prospect of eco-innovation.

·      Abstract is a bit confusing in term of clarity and I will suggest author/s to write the abstract in more promising way which can gave clear picture of this manuscript, further, author/s need to follow instructions for author/s because MDPI don’t required structural abstract, fix that.

·      Introduction is too weak in term of clarity of concepts, purpose and aim. I am wondering that why there is not a single citation in the introduction part. Like how is that possible, how could author/s claims novelty of this study and how could they prove their developed concepts without any citations. Why (explain)

·      Literature section line number 72, I would ask authors that they wrote “articles and research papers”. Please explain what is the difference between articles and research papers?

·      Very poorly written, 1 paragraph explain something and another paragraph gave something else. In research articles the literature part writing style is different from thesis. And here I feel that author/s writing style in the literature part is more like thesis. Please check line number 72-95. This section needs serious revision in term of clarity and sentence structure.

·      Correct the spelling of innovation in line number 106.

·      Literature is too scattered in term of concepts, one single concept is explained in many different parts i.e., innovation and much more. Whole literature section needs revision.

·      In Materials and methods section part 3.1 needs further explanations in term of variables. It will be better if author/s gave tables of all dependent, independent and control variables. 

·      I can’t follow the clear flow that what author/s are going to estimate, every section is too much scattered like I didn’t really understand that what or how they are going to estimate. In section 3.1 author mentioned that the data ranges from 2010-2019 then in3.1.1 they mentioned 2008-2019. Further, in section 3.1.2 author/s mentioned that eco-innovation is measured from 2000-2019 and then in the same section line 326 author/s mentioned about Finland eo-innovation value in 2020 is highest. Section 3.1.3 data range is 2010-2020. I didn’t actually understand three different ranges of data sets and in 3.1.2 the data range is 2000-2019 and the author/s mentioned that Finland eco-innovation in 2020. Too many mismatch.

·      Data and the results Try to explain concepts in the introduction section which are given in results section, that shows that author/s are rational about their study theme. Therefore, introduction section should be designed in way that each main concept which author/s are going to use or find in results section should be explained in introduction section, especially in the aims of the study.

·      Not satisfied with the empirical estimation.

·      If permission granted to resubmit, I will suggest the author/s to come up with best possible manuscript because the topic is very interesting but I am disappointed with write-up especially. Please proof read your manuscript with native or professionals.

Best of Luck!

Author Response

Thank you for your meaningful observations and kind suggestions.

The point-by-point response to your comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Author/s

I appreciate author/s for addressing my comments in timely and comprehensive way.

·      Abstract is improved well but here I will mention that author/s have provided me brief explanation and very impressive explanations on difference between article and research papers. I was impressed with their explanation but I am wondering that in abstract line number 24 author/s used the word article, so I am confused that according to the author/s response article means newspaper article. Now if it is according to the author/s explanation then replace this word and I hope author/s will consider this point. 

·      Introduction is improved but still there are few minor mistakes which authors needs to consider. For example, in line number 55 the citation is properly given according to the journal format but right below in line number 58, 65 and in the footnotes the citation style is different. Fix those errors. Rest the revised literature section seems comprehensive and it covers different aspect of the current study, which is good.

·      Literature section seems fine to me but still there are few errors which I feel that those point needs revision. Like, line number 97 should be rephrased.  Again, citation errors in line number 103 and so on. Fix those errors.

·      In Materials and methods section is improved. Appreciation for proving Table 1.

·      Rest I feel that the author/s have improved the manuscript in a nice way, appreciation for their hard-work.

·      I observe few grammatical mistakes and I am wondering that author/s have mentioned about proof read that author/s did that but still I found some mistakes. Therefore, go through your manuscript again in term of grammar.

Best of Luck!

Author Response

Thank you for your meaningful observations and kind suggestions.

The response can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx