Towards Sustainable Products and Services: The Influences of Traditional Costumes in Promoting Sustainable Fashion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations, you have done a very good job in improving the manuscript and to effectively nagivate the challenge of integrating cultural preservations with sustainability in the fashion industry. I feel the contribution of the paper is now much clearer than before. Well done.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTowards sustainable products and services: The influences of traditional costumes in promoting sustainable fashion
The topic of this work is not entirely new; however, it is relevant given current concerns about the preservation of cultural heritage alongside sustainable design and fashion.
The paper presents a comprehensive study on promoting sustainable fashion design by valorisation the traditional cultural heritage. The research is based on an extensive literature review and introduces an innovative approach aimed at enhancing sustainable design practices. This approach focuses on preserving, promoting, and creatively integrating the visual elements of traditional Vietnamese costumes into modern fashion products. The authors propose a model for sustainable design that emphasizes the importance of sustainable culture. This model incorporates co-design and design for sustainability, where fashion designers, artisans, and consumers collaborate to create new fashion products and services that draw on traditional cultural elements. The goal is to ensure the cultural sustainability of craft villages by preserving traditional skills while adapting to the needs of modern life. The text discusses the opportunities and challenges associated with incorporating traditional patterns and visual elements of Vietnamese costumes into contemporary fashion. It emphasizes the need to train young designers so they can innovate, adapt, and reinterpret traditional cultural values effectively.
The manuscript is well structured and clearly outlines the research framework and objectives. The research methodologies are well presented, and the results support the authors' conclusions. The manuscript is well written, in a clear and correct English language and style.
Considering the topic addressed, the way the research context is presented, and the results obtained, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would recommend making the contribution much more explicit and describe it in a very explicit and pointed way in the abstract, end of intoduction and in the discussion / conclusion of the paper (E.g. briefly clarifying what is really new about the new design model with two proposed approaches, and why is it useful).
Maintaining / using design heritage as a form of sustainability through cultural heritage protection is an important and field. In the triple bottom line thinking of economic, environmental ans social values creation, this aspect is usually underexplored. (a) This allows you to claim an important contribution. (b) you should develop this aspect further, i.e. pointing tot he deficit and more thoroughly developing why and how design adds to /is an aspect of sustainability.
It seems the „open innovation“ literature could contribute to your thinking about design in co-creation with stakeholders.
I wonder if the model by Leong et al (reference 53) and or Professor Rung-Tai Lin is similar to the organizational culture model be Edgar Schein. I think it would be useful if you make this link explicit. It is important that Western audiences learn much more about foreign concepts, which they have ignored so far ; explaining how such Eastern éléments connect to the concepts that are known in their narrow Western thinking is important, soi t is easier for them to understand.
If you made more explicit and visible, which argument comes from which empirical source, it would be easier fort he reader to understand how you have generated your findings. Currently, you describe methods, but it is not very clear, which findings result from which source/method.
I think it would be useful to explicitly discuss the implications of your work (with headings for each) for designers, fashion firms, academics, government bodies, international heritage protection, the stakeholders that are mentioned in your model, … [you decide which are relevant to you, but think broad and distinguish].
Ensure that the visuals are large and clear enough and come through well. Also, ensure copyrights. I wonder if figures 1 and 2 would look clearer with in black / white with lines only.
Good luck with this interesting stream of work!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is quite ok
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. Your work addresses an interesting and relevant topic. However, I regret to inform you that I must recommend its rejection due to the need for deep and complete revisions. I hope my feedback will be helpful for your future efforts.
The most significant concern is the methodological approach. There appear to be fundamental misunderstandings regarding the methodological concepts necessary for this type of study. For instance, the mention of direct variables in a qualitative study indicates a conceptual mix-up. The method, described is purely qualitative, and it lacks comprehensive explanation and clarity. From what I understand, your methodology involves a literature review, document investigation, expert interviews, and in-depth interviews with designers. However, the juxtaposition of findings from these various methods seems inadequately executed.
In the results section, the arguments and explanations are presented without fully disclosing the process of analysis, coding, or comparison. These steps are crucial for grounding your concepts and arguments in the data. Without a thorough presentation and discussion of these processes, the study’s validity is weakened.
Another crucial aspect is the theoretical framework. While the relevance of cultural elements in design is well articulated, the discussion on the use of these elements in design appears overly simplistic. The analysis of patterns and structure, or a mix of both, is too generic and lacks depth. Additionally, the connection between cultural garments and sustainability in design needs further development and explanation. The current discussion relies heavily on a broad perception of cultural relevance to sustainability, which needs to be more elaborated.
The division of market types into three categories, as mentioned in Table 2, is not explained (and frankly it does not seem adequate). There is also a basic technical error in referring to polyester, silk, and cotton as fabrics instead of fibers, and the mix-up with organza, which can be made from various fibers. Such fundamental concepts in fashion should be accurately used.
Furthermore, minor corrections are needed regarding the citation style consistency and some conceptual statements. For example, lines 100 and 156 use a different citation style compared to the rest of the paper, and line 45 discusses sustainability fashion as a concept that "was born" to "solve" negative environmental issues. Concepts are not born, and to say it wants to solve the issue is a bit too strong.
Overall, your study has some potential but requires comprehensive review and significant revisions in methodology, analysis, and theoretical discussion. I encourage you to thoroughly rework these aspects for a stronger and more coherent paper.
Best regards,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI think the article needs to be proofread professionally, because in some parts of the text the words chosen by the authors seem artificial or poorly translated.
