Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the paper "Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review" propose a relevant topic, namely "integrating circular economy (CE) principles into the agri-food supply chain over the past 20 years," and present the economic and sustainable impact, which generates a multiplier effect for the economies of member states and, especially, at a global level. However, the multiplier effect of the study's results should be mentioned within the study, starting from the abstract.

The concepts, citations, and bibliographic references are appropriately mentioned in the study, such as [3], [11], which indicate that "technological challenges, including the need for advanced infrastructure and expertise, as well as regulatory and policy issues, such as the lack of supportive policies, represent significant obstacles" regarding the "integration of circular economy (CE) principles into the agri-food supply chain." However, for academic accuracy, it would be advisable for the authors to highlight their thorough documentation within the specialized scientific literature by including a subchapter "Literature Review," which should also include the references mentioned in "Theoretical Background."

The research methodology is adequately presented, with the authors using appropriate tools, namely ChatGPT-4 for the filtering and screening process. Furthermore, the authors mention that "the systematic review process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13]."

The results are presented both descriptively and graphically through figures. Additionally, the authors highlight that "the regional focus on specific thematic issues reflects various challenges and priorities in the global agri-food supply chain. Europe's focus on waste management and resource efficiency, driven by regulatory frameworks, contrasts with the sustainable practices prioritized in developing countries to address food security." However, we suggest that the authors of the paper highlight the innovative scientific contributions to the specialized scientific literature.

The conclusions are appropriately presented, with the authors highlighting elements such as "the key thematic axes include waste management, resource efficiency, sustainable practices, and economic impact, each reflecting regional priorities and regulatory frameworks." Moreover, the authors emphasize the study's limitations, as well as directions for future research.

We congratulate the research team for the studied topic and suggest revising the paper in accordance with the elements mentioned above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a study in which a review regarding the integration of the circular economy principals in the supply chain was carried out considering the last 20 years. Despite the objective being interesting, the paper needs a further development a major, namely analysing the results of the review. The papers must be classified and detailed such that other researchers may use the paper.

I am also concerned the selection of the quality of the papers that was only done using automatic and artificial intelligence resources.

Main remarks

Introduction

L31-37-This needs a more comprehensive approach developing this issue and adding more references at international level.

L38-44-Other studies and challenges may be mentioned.

L66-You should mention the studies in detail.

L71-The importance of the review as well as the gaps in the current knowledge should be presented.

The objectives of the work should be detailed as well as the structure of the paper.

L134-137-This step should also had an extra analysis carried out the the authors.

"ChatGPT-4 assisted in evaluating the methodological quality of the 400 articles."- This should have been validated using experts and researcher knowledge.

"The final 100 articles were categorized based on temporal distribution, thematic is- 175 sues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages."-This should me mentioned and systhematized. But the results are quite general for a review that pretends to be detailed as this one. For further stusdies the practical application is none as many of the results of your reseach are not presented.

Table 3. Classification by Supply Chain Stage with Paper Mentions-You should present all the papers and not only examples.

A careful discussion is needed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, 

 

Thank you for providing the detailed literature review. Here are some suggestions to further improve your manuscript:

1. Completeness of References: In your article, you mentioned selecting 100 high-quality studies for final review, but the reference section only lists 29. It is recommended to ensure that all referenced studies are included in the references to maintain the integrity of citations and consistency between the text and references.

2. Additional Empirical Research: You mentioned the need for more empirical research to quantify the long-term economic and environmental benefits of Circular Economy (CE) practices in different geographical and socio-economic contexts. This suggestion is crucial and can be emphasized in the discussion section, highlighting the current limitations of research and urging the academic community to conduct more in-depth studies in this area, which will help readers understand the future research needs and directions in this field. 

3. Regional Disparities Examination: To address the differences in CE practices in different geographical and socio-economic contexts, it is recommended to include relevant discussions and analyses to provide more specific data and case studies, enhancing the practical value of the paper.

 

Thank you once again for your contribution, and I hope these suggestions will help enhance the quality of your manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the paper according to my comments. Congratulations for your work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable review. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Hello! First and foremost, we thank you for submitting your article for our review. After a thorough examination of your manuscript, we have identified a major issue that requires further elaboration and improvement on your part.

Specifically, you mentioned that for various reasons, it is not feasible to list all relevant excellent literature, making it impossible to determine from a literature review perspective whether you have conducted a sufficient analysis of related literature and whether these literatures are representative. We understand that in certain situations, directly listing all relevant literature may not be an easy task, for example, when the volume of literature is too large or the relevant literature is scattered across hard-to-reach resources. However, conducting a literature review and analysis is an indispensable part of academic writing, especially in confirming the novelty of the research question and determining the scope of research.

Therefore, we suggest the following:

1. Literature Overview: If directly listing all related excellent literature is not feasible, perhaps you can consider providing a literature review. This means you can briefly introduce the main research results and academic discussions in the field, and point out how your research innovates and expands on the existing literature.

2. Representative Literature: Choose a few core pieces of literature that have had a significant impact on your research and explain in detail the findings of these literatures and their relevance to your research. This will not only demonstrate your deep understanding of the field but also help readers understand the position of your research in the academic context.

3. Methodology: Explain how you selected and analyzed these representative literatures, including the evaluation criteria or analytical framework you used. This will enhance the credibility and transparency of your research.

We believe that adopting the above suggestions will help your manuscript pass the academic review process while also enriching your research and making it more inspiring to readers. We look forward to seeing the improvements you make to the manuscript and resubmitting it for review.

Thank you again for choosing to submit your work to us, and we hope to see your revised manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work to better meet the standards of academic rigor and clarity.

In response to your comments, we have undertaken the following revisions and enhancements to our manuscript:

Comment:

1. Literature Overview: If directly listing all related excellent literature is not feasible, perhaps you can consider providing a literature review. This means you can briefly introduce the main research results and academic discussions in the field, and point out how your research innovates and expands on the existing literature.

Response:

We have expanded literature review on Discussion section to include a more comprehensive overview of the main research results and academic discussions in the field of circular economy (CE) and its integration into supply chain management. We highlight additional text in early Discussion section with blue color.  This overview highlights the key contributions and debates within the field, providing context for our research and clearly positioning our work within the broader scholarly discourse. This revision not only outlines how our research contributes to and expands upon existing literature.

Comment

2. Representative Literature: Choose a few core pieces of literature that have had a significant impact on your research and explain in detail the findings of these literatures and their relevance to your research. This will not only demonstrate your deep understanding of the field but also help readers understand the position of your research in the academic context.

Response:

We have selected 5 core literature from the 100 initially reviewed studies, focusing on those that have had the most significant impact on the field. These works were chosen based on specific criteria such as citation impact, publication in high-tier journals, and relevance to CE and agri-food supply chain management. For each selected piece of literature, we have provided a detailed explanation of its findings and its relevance to our research. We have added this in the end of Materials and Methods section. This not only demonstrates our deep understanding of the field but also helps readers grasp the academic positioning and contribution of our research. We put this additional elaboration on the end of Results section.

Comment

3. Methodology: Explain how you selected and analyzed these representative literatures, including the evaluation criteria or analytical framework you used. This will enhance the credibility and transparency of your research.

Response:

To enhance the credibility and transparency of our research, we have added a detailed explanation of the methodology used to select the core literatures. We add a subsection of “Selection for Core Literatures” in the Materials and Methods section.  This subsection outlines the criteria and analytical framework applied, including citation impact, journal quality, relevance, contribution to theoretical and practical understanding, and recency. By clearly stating how these works were chosen, we ensure that our literature selection is systematic, rigorous, and aligned with the objectives of our research.

 

These revisions address the concerns you raised, ensuring that our manuscript presents a thorough and representative analysis of the relevant literature, while also clearly positioning our research within the academic context. We believe these changes significantly enhance the clarity, depth, and scholarly rigor of our work.

We hope that these improvements meet your expectations, and we look forward to any further feedback you may have. Thank you again for your valuable input and for considering our revised manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Eko Ruddy Cahyadi

Nurul Hidayati

Nisa Zahra

Chusnul Arif

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept