Research on Education for Sustainable Development with Design-Based Research by Employing Industry 4.0 Technologies for the Issue of Single-Use Plastic Waste in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement on this research. I have updated the manuscript based on the comments from other reviewers. Please find the listed contents below for your reference. 

1. Introduction

• Updates Made: I have clarified the research context by incorporating the information that this study was conducted as part of the participants' graduation thesis projects. This addition emphasizes the depth of engagement and the practical application of the circular economy principles in their design work.
• Rationale: By providing the thesis project context, the article better explains the participants' commitment level and the study's long-term nature, setting a clear foundation for understanding the project scope.

2. Methodology

• Updates Made: I elaborated on the role of the thesis project within the research process, explicitly mentioning that the students' involvement was voluntary and that the research extended over the course of their final academic year. I also provided additional details about how the students were divided into two groups based on their plastic consumption habits, which allowed for comparative insights.
• Rationale: These updates provide greater transparency regarding the research's structure and participant selection and further clarify the study's empirical design.

3. Participants

• Updates Made: I clarified the participant number by explicitly stating that the study involved four senior undergraduate students (three female, one male) from the Department of Design at National Taiwan Normal University. I also included the details of the small sample size because this was a graduation thesis project.
• Rationale: This explanation directly addresses any concerns about the limited number of participants by highlighting that the depth of engagement in the thesis work justified the smaller scale of the study.

4. Thematic Analysis

• Updates Made: The thematic analysis section was enhanced by emphasizing the key themes that emerged from the interviews, including environmental awareness, design lifecycle considerations, challenges with equipment, and the creative use of plastic waste. I provided a more structured presentation of the findings, organized by themes.
• Rationale: These changes enhance the coherence of the thematic analysis and ensure that the research findings are more clearly linked to the study's objectives and the literature on sustainability and design education.

5. Discussion

• Updates Made: I revised the discussion to include comparing traditional educational models and emerging frameworks such as STEM, STEAM, and STEM4S, especially about sustainability education. I also connected this back to the graduation thesis project, emphasizing how the long-term nature of the project facilitated more profound engagement with sustainability principles.
• Rationale: Including the educational model comparison strengthens the discussion by situating the research within broader pedagogical frameworks, showing how design education can evolve to meet sustainability challenges.

6. Conclusion

• Updates Made: I updated the conclusion to reflect the exploratory and participatory action research (PAR) methods used, highlighting how these methods enabled students to engage actively with plastic waste recycling and CE strategies. I also incorporated a stronger emphasis on the findings from the thematic analysis, particularly regarding the students' development of sustainability literacy and creative problem-solving skills.
• Rationale: These updates provide a more comprehensive summary of the research outcomes and better align the conclusion with the rest of the paper, tying together the methodological approach and the research findings.

7. Abstract

• Updates Made: The abstract was revised to include a brief mention of the thematic analysis results, highlighting the key themes that emerged from the interviews and observations, such as consumer behavior, sustainability literacy, and the challenges faced in the design process.
• Rationale: This ensures that the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the entire study, reflecting the depth of the analysis and the core findings.

8. Additional Updates

• Plastic Waste Consumption Insight: In the methodology and discussion sections, I elaborated on how the project was divided into two groups based on their plastic consumption habits, which provided valuable comparative insights.
• Open-Source Tools and Additive Manufacturing: I expanded on the use of open-source tools and additive manufacturing technologies, particularly how they were applied in the design process to recycle plastic waste.
• Rationale: These additions highlight design tools' innovation and practical application in addressing sustainability challenges.

These revisions significantly improve the paper's clarity, coherence, and depth. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting study is presented from its conception to the achievements obtained. The subject matter of the document is completely relevant to the journal and provides a good context for understanding.

Unfortunately, the number of samples (four) is very low, therefore, in order for the results and conclusions to be considered, the number of samples must be increased considerably, otherwise it is speculation. It is not explained why the number of participants was so low.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on this research. I have updated the manuscript based on the comments enhancing the research method with the small sample size. Please find the listed contents below for your reference. 

1. Introduction

• Updates Made: I have clarified the research context by incorporating the information that this study was conducted as part of the participants' graduation thesis projects. This addition emphasizes the depth of engagement and the practical application of the circular economy principles in their design work.
• Rationale: By providing the thesis project context, the article better explains the participants' commitment level and the study's long-term nature, setting a clear foundation for understanding the project scope.

2. Methodology

• Updates Made: I elaborated on the role of the thesis project within the research process, explicitly mentioning that the students' involvement was voluntary and that the research extended over the course of their final academic year. I also provided additional details about how the students were divided into two groups based on their plastic consumption habits, which allowed for comparative insights.
• Rationale: These updates provide greater transparency regarding the research's structure and participant selection and further clarify the study's empirical design.

3. Participants

• Updates Made: I clarified the participant number by explicitly stating that the study involved four senior undergraduate students (three female, one male) from the Department of Design at National Taiwan Normal University. I also included the details of the small sample size because this was a graduation thesis project.
• Rationale: This explanation directly addresses any concerns about the limited number of participants by highlighting that the depth of engagement in the thesis work justified the smaller scale of the study.

4. Thematic Analysis

• Updates Made: The thematic analysis section was enhanced by emphasizing the key themes that emerged from the interviews, including environmental awareness, design lifecycle considerations, challenges with equipment, and the creative use of plastic waste. I provided a more structured presentation of the findings, organized by themes.
• Rationale: These changes enhance the coherence of the thematic analysis and ensure that the research findings are more clearly linked to the study's objectives and the literature on sustainability and design education.

5. Discussion

• Updates Made: I revised the discussion to include comparing traditional educational models and emerging frameworks such as STEM, STEAM, and STEM4S, especially about sustainability education. I also connected this back to the graduation thesis project, emphasizing how the long-term nature of the project facilitated more profound engagement with sustainability principles.
• Rationale: Including the educational model comparison strengthens the discussion by situating the research within broader pedagogical frameworks, showing how design education can evolve to meet sustainability challenges.

6. Conclusion

• Updates Made: I updated the conclusion to reflect the exploratory and participatory action research (PAR) methods used, highlighting how these methods enabled students to engage actively with plastic waste recycling and CE strategies. I also incorporated a stronger emphasis on the findings from the thematic analysis, particularly regarding the students' development of sustainability literacy and creative problem-solving skills.
• Rationale: These updates provide a more comprehensive summary of the research outcomes and better align the conclusion with the rest of the paper, tying together the methodological approach and the research findings.

7. Abstract

• Updates Made: The abstract was revised to include a brief mention of the thematic analysis results, highlighting the key themes that emerged from the interviews and observations, such as consumer behavior, sustainability literacy, and the challenges faced in the design process.
• Rationale: This ensures that the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the entire study, reflecting the depth of the analysis and the core findings.

8. Additional Updates

• Plastic Waste Consumption Insight: In the methodology and discussion sections, I elaborated on how the project was divided into two groups based on their plastic consumption habits, which provided valuable comparative insights.
• Open-Source Tools and Additive Manufacturing: I expanded on the use of open-source tools and additive manufacturing technologies, particularly how they were applied in the design process to recycle plastic waste.
• Rationale: These additions highlight design tools' innovation and practical application in addressing sustainability challenges.

These revisions significantly improve the paper's clarity, coherence, and depth. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The idea of the paper itself is welcome, but the execution of the paper is very shallow from a methodological point of view. One could say that the methodological part is almost non-existent. If the study used interviews and observation methods, a very accurate description of this should be given in the methodology part of the paper. Now, some methodological aspects are given in the results, but this is not an appropriate choice. The entire methodology of the study must be described very clearly: the participants, the process, the methods of collection and analysis. 

There is also a very important question about the ethics of research. The abstract gives the exact authority, with some reference to the participants in the study. The ethics of the study must be described and it is not proposed to refer to the participants in the study by the letters _A; B and so on.

The results section contains a summary of the interview responses. Some method must be used to analyse the interviews; summarising them is not sufficient for a scientific paper.

It is therefore suggested that the whole article should be overhauled and the study methodologically reorganised.  

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful feedback on my article. Based on your suggestions and my reflections, I have made several critical updates to the manuscript. Below is a detailed overview of the changes made in the uploaded manuscript with the highlights, organized by section, and an explanation of how they contribute to the overall improvement of the paper.

1. Introduction

• Updates Made: I have clarified the research context by incorporating the information that this study was conducted as part of the participants' graduation thesis projects. This addition emphasizes the depth of engagement and the practical application of the circular economy principles in their design work.
• Rationale: By providing the thesis project context, the article better explains the participants' commitment level and the study's long-term nature, setting a clear foundation for understanding the project scope.

2. Methodology

• Updates Made: I elaborated on the role of the thesis project within the research process, explicitly mentioning that the students' involvement was voluntary and that the research extended over the course of their final academic year. I also provided additional details about how the students were divided into two groups based on their plastic consumption habits, which allowed for comparative insights.
• Rationale: These updates provide greater transparency regarding the research's structure and participant selection and further clarify the study's empirical design.

3. Participants

• Updates Made: I clarified the participant number by explicitly stating that the study involved four senior undergraduate students (three female, one male) from the Department of Design at National Taiwan Normal University. I also included the details of the small sample size because this was a graduation thesis project.
• Rationale: This explanation directly addresses any concerns about the limited number of participants by highlighting that the depth of engagement in the thesis work justified the smaller scale of the study.

4. Thematic Analysis

• Updates Made: The thematic analysis section was enhanced by emphasizing the key themes that emerged from the interviews, including environmental awareness, design lifecycle considerations, challenges with equipment, and the creative use of plastic waste. I provided a more structured presentation of the findings, organized by themes.
• Rationale: These changes enhance the coherence of the thematic analysis and ensure that the research findings are more clearly linked to the study's objectives and the literature on sustainability and design education.

5. Discussion

• Updates Made: I revised the discussion to include comparing traditional educational models and emerging frameworks such as STEM, STEAM, and STEM4S, especially about sustainability education. I also connected this back to the graduation thesis project, emphasizing how the long-term nature of the project facilitated more profound engagement with sustainability principles.
• Rationale: Including the educational model comparison strengthens the discussion by situating the research within broader pedagogical frameworks, showing how design education can evolve to meet sustainability challenges.

6. Conclusion

• Updates Made: I updated the conclusion to reflect the exploratory and participatory action research (PAR) methods used, highlighting how these methods enabled students to engage actively with plastic waste recycling and CE strategies. I also incorporated a stronger emphasis on the findings from the thematic analysis, particularly regarding the students' development of sustainability literacy and creative problem-solving skills.
• Rationale: These updates provide a more comprehensive summary of the research outcomes and better align the conclusion with the rest of the paper, tying together the methodological approach and the research findings.

7. Abstract

• Updates Made: The abstract was revised to include a brief mention of the thematic analysis results, highlighting the key themes that emerged from the interviews and observations, such as consumer behavior, sustainability literacy, and the challenges faced in the design process.
• Rationale: This ensures that the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the entire study, reflecting the depth of the analysis and the core findings.

8. Additional Updates

• Plastic Waste Consumption Insight: In the methodology and discussion sections, I elaborated on how the project was divided into two groups based on their plastic consumption habits, which provided valuable comparative insights.
• Open-Source Tools and Additive Manufacturing: I expanded on the use of open-source tools and additive manufacturing technologies, particularly how they were applied in the design process to recycle plastic waste.
• Rationale: These additions highlight design tools' innovation and practical application in addressing sustainability challenges.

These revisions significantly improve the paper's clarity, coherence, and depth. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made the suggested changes and improved the quality and clarity of the document.

Nothing can be done about the low number of samples; however, the author justifies and gives arguments for this condition.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to you for supporting this research. Your thoughtful insights and constructive suggestions significantly enhanced the quality of this study, and I sincerely appreciate the time and expertise you dedicated to this review.

Your support in strengthening the rigor of this research has been invaluable, and I am grateful for your role in advancing its impact. Thank you again for your encouragement and your positive contribution to this research.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your corrections. The methodology section is now clearer, but I would just like to point out a few more points that need to be corrected.

1) You need to decide whether you are conducting an exploratory or Participation Action Research (PAR) and justify it accordingly. Also, the presentation of the type of study must precede the participants, the methods of data collection or analysis.

2) Interview questions (Table 4) cannot be presented in the results section. It must be presented under the collection methods (methodology section).

3) Although you state that you use thematic analysis, in the results section you do not provide the themes found, but rather the summarised interview responses (table 3). A thematic analysis of the interview data needs to be carried out and the results described accordingly.

4) Table 6 should also be placed in the results section and commented there.

5) The discussion section should be supplemented with insights from other researchers,

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out the valuable feedback on the research. Please find the following updates for revising the manuscript. 

(1) I revised the methodology section to explain how these two methods play a significant role in this study as follows:

The exploratory aspect addresses the need for foundational knowledge on integrating circular economy (CE) principles with open-source and additive manufacturing technologies in educational settings. At the same time, the PAR component emphasizes active student engagement, where students are not merely subjects but co-researchers involved in a hands-on learning process. Following this explanation, we present the participants and specific methods, including data collection and thematic analysis, ensuring that the methodology aligns with the study's goals and structure.

(2) I have placed the interview questions in the methodology section (3.5) and explained their contents. 

(3) The results section includes new sections for the summary of interview responses and thematic analysis. Each theme is identified and described as a sub-section of analysis (4.4.1 to 4.4.4)

(4) Table 6 is placed in the results section and explained accordingly (4.5).

(5) The discussion section is revised by reflecting on other researcher outcomes, such as Santini (2024), Kokkarinen and Cotgrave (2013), Park et al. (2022), and Ravindran (2020) for extending the discussion of research findings. 

Please let me know if the suggestions are covered in the revision. 

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your corrections.

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 Authors

The main results are presented in Section 4, and there are very limited new ideas in the design scheme (the technique and method are very standard without any theoretical novelties). In general, the contribution of this paper is very marginal, thus not significant and sufficient to be considered for publication in this journal.

 

1.      Lines 36-38: The authors compared the peer-reviewed articles on CE in 2016 to 2014. This comparison should be provided for the most recent year (at least 2022).

2.      The text is too repetitive. The authors should improve the text to make it more fluent (easier to read).

3.      The introduction is not clear about the novelty of the work and it should be improved. In this section, briefly and clearly describe why you developed the work. The introduction provides enough background information for the reader to understand and evaluate your work. It also provides a rationale for the study. It does not present the problem and its solution. The scope of the researched work is also not clear. The literature review should support and orient the reader.

4.      Line 41- "Rs" - The abbreviations or expressions should be explained at the first appearance in the text.

5.      Line 133 – The numbers in the headings are not sequential.

6.      Discussion can be further elaborated, comparing with other results in literature. This section needs to discuss and link the results of the current research with previous studies. The overall discussion should be further strengthened by including related work recently published in related journals.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I appreciate your valuable feedback on the research article. I have diligently implemented your comments in the revised version submitted to the Academic Editor.

Best regards,
Daisuke Nagatomo

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents the results of a project implemented by students in design, related to plastic recycling and transforming it into new usable products.

In my opinion, the authors should address a few weaknesses before publishing.

• The methodology approach is unclear. How many students participated in the project? Four students collected the plastic waste, and the same group did implement the project. What is their profile? (age, gender, level of studies, etc.)

• Did they design only one product with the collected and transformed plastic waste?

 

• The Discussion should be done in the light of similar previous research. This project includes art, thus, STE(A)M is a more appropriate term.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I appreciate your valuable feedback on the research article. I have diligently implemented your comments in the revised version submitted to the Academic Editor.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have some observations:

1. The numbering of the references is doubled, please modify.

2. The indtroduction part please improve with the application domain of plastic waste, see doi:10.1038/s41598-023-30857-9.

3. Please improve disscussion part with the benefits of the method implemented.

4. The refences are not in the format required from journal

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I appreciate your valuable feedback on the research article. I have diligently implemented your comments in the revised version submitted to the Academic Editor.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporate my comments and improve the manuscript. However, as I said before, there are very limited new ideas in the design scheme (the technique and method are very standard without any theoretical novelties). Again, the contribution of this paper is very marginal, thus not significant and sufficient to be considered for publication in this journal and my recommendation is to reject this paper.

Author Response

Comment 2: The authors incorporate my comments and improve the manuscript. However, as I said before, there are very limited new ideas in the design scheme (the technique and method are very standard without any theoretical novelties). Again, the contribution of this paper is very marginal, thus not significant and sufficient to be considered for publication in this journal and my recommendation is to reject this paper.

Response 2: Thank you again for the valuable comments on the article. I will reflect to the next research. Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, highlight in the text the changes done, and include a response letter.

Author Response

Comments 2: Please, highlight in the text the changes done, and include a response letter.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comments on the article. Please find the highlighted revision on the PDF. The revision contents are listed  on the response letter inserted prior to the revised article in the PDF. 

Please let me know if you have any question. 

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree to be publish.

Author Response

Comments 2: I agree to be publish.

Response 2:

Thank you for your feedback and encouragement on this research article.

Best regards,

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My recommendation is still to reject this paper. In my opinio, there is no novelty enough for publication of this study. 

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf