How Can We Design Policy Better? Frameworks and Approaches for Sustainability Transitions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The review explores the guiding frameworks and methods that sustainability transitions literature offers, to support transition efforts at different stages of the process.
The abstract corresponds mainly to a review. The literature exploration methodology and the articles included in the study could also be added.
In the introduction, a good transposition is made in the topic and the research question is formulated.
Frameworks and approaches for sustainability transition governance should highlight the development of innovative reference frameworks supported by indicators, e.g.: Moldovan, F.; Moldovan, L.; Bataga, T. The Environmental Sustainability Assessment of an Orthopedics Emergency Hospital Supported by a New Innovative Framework. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13402. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813402
The footnote on page 7, section 4.2, should be included in the main text and deleted.
The objective of the paper is stated in the conclusions section and should be moved to the end of the introductory section. I think that the 3 research questions are in the same situation.
The conclusions chapter should be synthetic around the last paragraph.
Perhaps the limits of the study should be added.
It is not specified how the articles included in the review were selected.
The bibliography is extensive, recent and well edited.
Also, the paper is well written, and I congratulate the group of authors for it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors
The introduction addresses many very general aspects that are binding but has a vast literature, however, it is very general, and the objective is very broad, as for the methodology it does not indicate it, it would be good if it incorporated a methodological sequence that I apply in the research.
It is not clear what the contribution of the research is, it should emphasize more on the discussion of results, and Figure 1 must be explained. It does not have a comparative analysis of other findings.
They must organize the ideas to be able to give them a sequential order and make the ideas clear. You should also incorporate graphs and statistics that can better explain the indicated theory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research aims to present a state-of-the-art review of tools and frameworks for sustainability transition. The topic is relevant in the field, and the authors succeeded in achieving the goal formulated at the beginning of the paper by providing an extensive literature analysis and using several graphs and tables that contribute in particular to the understanding of the topic.
Nevertheless, there are some improvements to be implemented before the paper could be published:
- The methodology chosen for the current research paper needs to be clarified, and it is hard to assess if it could be considered appropriate and if no further improvements are necessary. I encourage the authors to address this concern and to pay more attention to the description of the methodological concept chosen.
- The weakest part of the research is the conclusions, as they are inconsistent with the evidence presented in the article, no demonstrating the input of the current research paper to the scientific discussion on the field to the full extent. The authors should improve this part of the work considerably, including the scientific discussion, as well as adding the conclusions demonstrating the potential implications for research, business, etc., in the future.
The article is worth publishing as soon as the authors have revised it and implemented the comments mentioned above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article "How can we design policy better? Frameworks and Approaches for Sustainability Transitions" holds significant research significance by comprehensively assessing current policy frameworks and methods for sustainable transformations. Its aim is to propose a systematic and comprehensive approach to policy design within the framework of STSs (Sociotechnical Systems Transitions), providing crucial guidance for governmental sustainable governance. However, there are certain shortcomings identified, prompting suggestions for revision as follows:
1. Insufficient justification for the article's core focus. While the primary contribution revolves around "synthesizing the findings in a conceptual framework," there is a lack of elaboration on "policy design within the STSs framework." It is recommended to provide a more scientifically detailed exploration of the policy design process within this framework.
2. The article's structural layout appears suboptimal. The extensive coverage within "4. Frameworks and approaches for sustainability transition governance" predominantly delves into an overview of existing policy frameworks and methods, which could be streamlined and consolidated into the "1. Introduction" section. Suggesting a consolidation of these sections aims to enhance the article's coherence and flow.
Overall, refining the discourse on policy design within STSs and reorganizing the article's structure would augment its scholarly value and accessibility.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors, very good improvements in the document, in table 1 you should use the correct format, in Table 2 you must better organize the content of the information, it would be good to incorporate the point of the discussion, where you can cite other findings similar yours
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article has been carefully revised according to the reviewer's comments, has reached the publication level, and is recommended for "publication".
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language of the paper is accurate and fluent, and the ideas are presented professionally.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
