Advances and Challenges of a Circular Economy (CE) in Agriculture in Ibero-America: A Bibliometric Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good morning, Dear Jurors.   With best regards, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments you have made to our paper and the time you have taken.   The adjustments made are as follows Comment Adjustment  I consider the scope of the article on CE in agriculture in Ibero-America to be a highly topical issue. However, it would have been interesting to take advantage of the opportunity to extend the studies to specific cases in each country, with an analysis of the specific impacts on agriculture, which, due to their characteristics, could be different and would help a more robust discussion. More information is provided on leading countries in this process, such as: Spain, Portugal, Brazil and Chile.   The methodology could better clarify how the bibliometric analysis directly supports the conclusions regarding the software tools used for the analysis. The methodology of this research is based on a quantitative approach, in which bibliometric analysis facilitates the identification of patterns and trends in the scientific literature related to the Circular Economy in Agriculture [55]. This analysis also involves the use of specialised software tools. Through the collection and study of bibliographic data, such as citations, co-citations, and frequency of occurrence of key terms, this method provides a solid basis for understanding how tools contribute to advances in the area and which are the most relevant in different contexts. Cordially 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant changes to the manuscript, in particular:

1) The authors have expanded the background discussion including the motivation and challenges faced by the countries in implementing circular economy policies and measures. A few social ecology models have also been discussed.

2) A section on the analysis of CE activities in the various Latin American countries has been added after Table 1, which discusses country-specific practices and policies along with appropriate references. This section is very beneficial to the overall manuscript.

3) The section on bibliometric analysis on articles pertaining to CE has been expanded, and workflow and trends have been presented as figures. Appropriate conclusions have also been made.

Overall, the revised manuscript has several improvements and is suitable for publication in Sustainability. 

Author Response

Good morning, Dear Jurors.   With best regards, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments you have made to our paper and the time you have taken.   The adjustments made are as follows Comment Adjustment  I consider the scope of the article on CE in agriculture in Ibero-America to be a highly topical issue. However, it would have been interesting to take advantage of the opportunity to extend the studies to specific cases in each country, with an analysis of the specific impacts on agriculture, which, due to their characteristics, could be different and would help a more robust discussion. More information is provided on leading countries in this process, such as: Spain, Portugal, Brazil and Chile.   The methodology could better clarify how the bibliometric analysis directly supports the conclusions regarding the software tools used for the analysis. The methodology of this research is based on a quantitative approach, in which bibliometric analysis facilitates the identification of patterns and trends in the scientific literature related to the Circular Economy in Agriculture [55]. This analysis also involves the use of specialised software tools. Through the collection and study of bibliographic data, such as citations, co-citations, and frequency of occurrence of key terms, this method provides a solid basis for understanding how tools contribute to advances in the area and which are the most relevant in different contexts. Cordially 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

he article contributes to understanding the role of CE in agriculture, focusing on Ibero-America, and explores the frameworks of several nations, which makes it valuable.

The organization of the research is mostly coherent with clear sections on the methodology used, findings, and specific implementations of each reference country.

The research is credible and supported by data from reliable sources. Some claims could benefit from further verification or discussion on limitations, especially regarding broad generalizations.

The article cites a wide range of references, showing a thorough review of existing literature, including seminal works on CE and recent studies focused on Ibero-America.

I consider the scope of the article on CE in agriculture in Ibero-America to be a very timely and topical topic. However, it would have been interesting to take the opportunity to expand the studies to specific cases of each country, with an analysis of the specific impacts on agriculture, which due to their characteristics, could be different and would help in a more robust discussion.

The methodology could better clarify how the bibliometric analysis directly supports conclusions regarding the software tools used for the analysis.

Author Response

Good morning, Dear Jurors.   With best regards, we would like to thank you for the valuable comments you have made to our paper and the time you have taken.   The adjustments made are as follows Comment Adjustment  I consider the scope of the article on CE in agriculture in Ibero-America to be a highly topical issue. However, it would have been interesting to take advantage of the opportunity to extend the studies to specific cases in each country, with an analysis of the specific impacts on agriculture, which, due to their characteristics, could be different and would help a more robust discussion. More information is provided on leading countries in this process, such as: Spain, Portugal, Brazil and Chile.   The methodology could better clarify how the bibliometric analysis directly supports the conclusions regarding the software tools used for the analysis. The methodology of this research is based on a quantitative approach, in which bibliometric analysis facilitates the identification of patterns and trends in the scientific literature related to the Circular Economy in Agriculture [55]. This analysis also involves the use of specialised software tools. Through the collection and study of bibliographic data, such as citations, co-citations, and frequency of occurrence of key terms, this method provides a solid basis for understanding how tools contribute to advances in the area and which are the most relevant in different contexts. Cordially 

 

 

 

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 paper on the progress and challenges of circular economy (CE) in Ibero-American agriculture addresses a very important and timely topic, providing an in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field. After carefully reading the entire paper, I have the following review comments:

1. The paper provides an overview of circular economy practices in Ibero-America but seems to lack an in-depth analysis of the specific situations in each country. It is recommended that the authors provide more detailed information on the differences in practices across countries.

2. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis, but it is suggested to further expand the literature review section. This should include a critical analysis of existing literature and a deeper exploration of circular economy theories.

3. The paper uses various statistical tools and software for analysis, but the reasons for choosing these tools and their usage are not adequately described. It is recommended that the authors provide more details in the methodology section, explaining why these tools were chosen and how they help address the research questions.

4. The paper presents a large amount of data and charts, but the quality of some charts is not high, and the explanation of some charts and data seems unclear. It is recommended that the authors provide more detailed explanations in the results section to help readers better understand the meaning behind the data.

5. The discussion section analyzes the results, but the conclusion section appears too brief. It is recommended that the authors summarize the main findings in the conclusion and propose specific policy recommendations or future research directions.

6. The paper mentions multiple country cases but lacks in-depth case study analysis. It is suggested that the authors select one or two countries as cases to deeply analyze the success factors and challenges of their circular economy practices.

7. Some expressions are not standardized, such as: line 31: "valorisation"/line 59: "analyse".

8. Reference citations are not standardized, such as line 62: Castellani & Sala, lines 72-74.

9. There is significant fragmentation in the writing process, for example: lines 157-181, lines 197-203.

10. The organization of tables and figures is poor; it is recommended to simplify Table 1.

11. The presentation of figures should conform to journal standards, with titles placed below the figures.

12. The titles of the figures are too brief and do not clearly convey their specific meaning. This applies to Figures 3 and 7.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper on the progress and challenges of circular economy (CE) in Ibero-American agriculture addresses a very important and timely topic, providing an in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field. After carefully reading the entire paper, I have the following review comments:

1. The paper provides an overview of circular economy practices in Ibero-America but seems to lack an in-depth analysis of the specific situations in each country. It is recommended that the authors provide more detailed information on the differences in practices across countries.

2. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis, but it is suggested to further expand the literature review section. This should include a critical analysis of existing literature and a deeper exploration of circular economy theories.

3. The paper uses various statistical tools and software for analysis, but the reasons for choosing these tools and their usage are not adequately described. It is recommended that the authors provide more details in the methodology section, explaining why these tools were chosen and how they help address the research questions.

4. The paper presents a large amount of data and charts, but the quality of some charts is not high, and the explanation of some charts and data seems unclear. It is recommended that the authors provide more detailed explanations in the results section to help readers better understand the meaning behind the data.

5. The discussion section analyzes the results, but the conclusion section appears too brief. It is recommended that the authors summarize the main findings in the conclusion and propose specific policy recommendations or future research directions.

6. The paper mentions multiple country cases but lacks in-depth case study analysis. It is suggested that the authors select one or two countries as cases to deeply analyze the success factors and challenges of their circular economy practices.

7. Some expressions are not standardized, such as: line 31: "valorisation"/line 59: "analyse".

8. Reference citations are not standardized, such as line 62: Castellani & Sala, lines 72-74.

9. There is significant fragmentation in the writing process, for example: lines 157-181, lines 197-203.

10. The organization of tables and figures is poor; it is recommended to simplify Table 1.

11. The presentation of figures should conform to journal standards, with titles placed below the figures.

12. The titles of the figures are too brief and do not clearly convey their specific meaning. This applies to Figures 3 and 7.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study focused on the Circular Economy (CE) in agriculture in Ibero-America, which is carried out based on a bibliometric perspective. This paper is suitable for the subject of “Sustainability”. This manuscript is written with fluent expression and the research is full of content. However, I have come comments that I would like the authors to address before submitting a revised manuscript.

1. Table 1 lackes a title. There are excessive contents in Table 1, thus authors should modified Table 1 to make it brief.

2. The number of references are not enough considering this is a review paper. Authors should add more influential and the latest references.

3. Authors should provide the data sources or reference of Figure 2.

4. There are some no-English words in Table 2. Please change the language expression to English.

5. Figures 3\4\6\7 are not clear, and the words in these figures are too small. Authors should modifiy these figures.

6. The part 4 should be Conclusion rather than Discussion.

7. What is the key problem that needs to be solved to develop the Circular Economy in agriculture in Ibero-America? How is the problem being solved? Above contents should be stated in the Conclusion.

8. There are many format problems in the manuscript. Authors should thoroughly modify format to improve the scientificity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comments attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Gaitan Angulo and coworkers have presented a perspective on the implementation and challenges involved therewith of circular economy (CE) in agriculture in various Ibero-American countries. Alongside this, various statistical and bibliometric tools have been employed to survey and analyze recent literature associated with CE practices in agriculture. Despite the vast and ambitious nature of such a study, there are several issues related to the content and presentation of this data and relevant references, as outlined below:

1) In the introduction section, lines 82-83 suggest that research involving radical changes in lifestyle and resource usage is needed. How amenable are such radical changes for indigenous communities in these countries ? The authors must dedicate a section to environmental policy impacts on these communities and related policy framework in this context.

2) Table 1 needs to be completely restructured. It contains too much generic information and is very hard to read across several pages in a table format.

(i) I would recommend converting the table into case studies for each country separately, highlighting the specific policies, innovations, achievements and challenges individually.

(ii) The table contains a lot of information and too few references. Websites, newspaper articles, citations etc. must be provided for each specific example mentioned in the table.

(iii) For each country, comment on social/public incentives for waste recycling and government-based initiatives in this regard.

(iv) In a separate table, statistical data may be provided for each country, such as waste recycling data, energy usage, annual financial budgets and expenditure in the context of agricultural sectors etc. This table would be much more useful as a comparison. In this table, a brief summary can be provided that highlight differences due to social/political/economic conditions for each country. 

(v) There are redundancies in wording in the table that have to be changed: For example, the "Challenges" column for both Brazil and Portugal contain the same sentence, "On the other hand, although new generations..........CE to promote its adoption". This must be reworded.  

3) For each country, the challenges related to scalability of new and innovative CE technologies must be addressed and appropriate citations must be provided. 

In conclusion, a large part of the main text must be restructured to make the information more coherent. Several references need to be provided corresponding to specific examples mentioned in the text. In its present form, this perspective is not suitable for publication in Sustainability.