Proposal for a Circular Product Development Model Applied to Packaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Reviewer 1 has made comments directly in the pdf file. We reply to all of marks in the sequence.

Response of the authors for remarks and comments:

Nomenclature used: Reviewer comment or highlight = RC; Answer of the authors = AA;

RC 1 - Line 38: highlight due to citation format

AA: All the references were reviewed and adjusted according to the required standard.

RC 2 - Lines 44 to 45: What do you mean here? Can you substantiate this?

AA: We revised the content and rewritten it in order to facilitate the interpretation and understanding. The new text is presented in lines 43 to 48.

RC 3 - Lines 49 to 50:  Absolute bollocks, both sources aren't even close to claiming this. Have you even read them?

AA: Indeed, the statement that "Packaging can represent up to 70% of a product's environmental impact [17] [12]" is not right. We decided to exclude it from the text.

RC 4 - Line 50: Referencing is off. Where reference 10, for instance?

AA: All the references were reviewed and adjusted according to the required standard. We used Mendeley software to manage the references.

This specific reference we adjusted, and it is in lines 51 to 54.

RC 5 - Line 64: Wrong ref

AA: We adjusted it. It is in line 69.

RC 6 - Line 74: You couldn't bother to continue the numbered referencing? Consistency is key!

AA: You are right in your comment. As stated in other comments, all references were reviewed and managed through Mendeley software.

RC 7 - Line 77: But WHY?

AA: We describe the reason why the case study application in a new topic numbered as 2.5.

RC 8 - Line 80 to 81: Why?!

AA: The justification for using the SLR framework proposed by Conforto and Amaral (2011) was added in lines 84 to 86.

RC 9 - Line 82 to 83: What do you mean here? And how do you make this assessment?

AA: We reviewed topic 2.1 completely to explain each SLR step better. These questions are replies mainly in lines 90 to 102.

RC 10 - Line 95 to 96: Why?

AA: We added the justification for using Google Scholar in lines 107 to 109.

RC 11 - Figure 1 – Comment 1: You indicate that English was a factor for selection. How can it also be a factor for filtering?

AA: We updated the SLR to 2024 and revised the data in Figure 1. The English language was used as a filtering step. We highlight this information in Lines 93 to 94 and in Table 1.

RC 12 - Figure 1 – Comment 2: You went from 1128 to 498 by only excluding duplicates? So that means that you had 630 duplicates of 498 articles, so even more than one duplicate per article? I highly doubt the rigor of your scientific approach here.

AA: You are right. We revised the filtering steps, and the new numbers are presented in Figure 1.

RC 13 - Figure 1 – Comment 3: Using which indicators? Completely unclear here.

AA: We adjusted the text to explain better the strategy of filtering. We add the text in lines 95 to 102 for this specific question.

RC 14 - Table 1 – Comment 1: In the totality of Google Scholar's indexed articles, you only found FIVE?! Again, I have severe doubts about your scientific approach here!

AA: Thank you for your observation. This information was incorrect in the previous version of the article. We have revised Table 1, now called Table 2, and clarified its content in the text in lines 112 to 119.

RC 15 - Table 1 – Comment 2: Didn't care to use references here?

AA: We add the references in each document quoted in this Table.

RC 16 - Line 150: Are you sure?

AA: We correct the year to 2008.

RC 17 - Lines 661 to 663: Absolutely sloppy referencing, You didn't even bother to translate

AA: We adjusted the reference according to the pattern of the journal. In relation to the reference to the Rozenfeld model, we kept it in Portuguese, given the origin of the book.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature in the research area a circular product development model applied to packaging and a circular product development model specifically for packaging is proposed to integrate Circular Economy principles into the traditional product development process. However, as the authors themselves reported, a significant limitation of the presented study is the lack of use of the proposed model for the development of real packaging in the company itself. This would make it possible to unambiguously evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed model. The authors explain that this limitation is due to the fact that the studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, 4 years have already passed. I believe that during this time it would have been possible to supplement the study with the aim of confirming the effectiveness of using the proposed model.

In continuation of this remark, I would like to note that the analysis of literature in this area of ​​research was also limited to 2021. The question arises: has research been conducted on this topic over the past three years? If so, then this should certainly be reflected in the introduction of the article. This gives the impression that the presented research was relevant for publication in 2021. And today, it seems to me, the article needs to be supplemented with current data.

Authors are also encouraged to download a Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template and use it to format their article. Since there are comments on the design of the article, namely:

1. References should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].

2. Authors should prepare a references in accordance with the requirements of the journal, namely in this format:

Journal Articles:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

3. Keywords must be listed separated by semicolons.

4. In the names of tables 5, 6, 7, 8, make changes, namely - instead of a colon after the Tables there should be a period

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer 2 made 2 general comments on the paper and some specific comments. So, we organized our responses into general and specific comments.

Response of the authors for remarks and comments - General Comments:

Nomenclature used: Reviewer comment or highlight = RC; Answer of the authors = AA;

RC 1 - The authors conducted a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature in the research area a circular product development model applied to packaging and a circular product development model specifically for packaging is proposed to integrate Circular Economy principles into the traditional product development process. However, as the authors themselves reported, a significant limitation of the presented study is the lack of use of the proposed model for the development of real packaging in the company itself. This would make it possible to unambiguously evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed model. The authors explain that this limitation is due to the fact that the studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, 4 years have already passed. I believe that during this time it would have been possible to supplement the study with the aim of confirming the effectiveness of using the proposed model.

AA: Thank you for your comment. We reread the text related to the limitation observed and understood that this text was not clear.

First, regarding the limitation text, we adapted it to make it clearer. The new wording of the text is found in lines 571 to 577.

Second, in our understanding, the C-PDM developed in this study was applied in a packaging industry in the Curitiba region - Brazil, and it was possible to structure a proposal for a new PDP for this industry. However, the implementation of circular practices ended up not occurring until now due to changes in the industry's management.

All the application process details can be found in topics 2.5 and 3.5.

RC 2 - In continuation of this remark, I would like to note that the analysis of literature in this area of ​​research was also limited to 2021. The question arises: has research been conducted on this topic over the past three years? If so, then this should certainly be reflected in the introduction of the article. This gives the impression that the presented research was relevant for publication in 2021. And today, it seems to me, the article needs to be supplemented with current data.

AA: We updated the SLR to 2024 and revised the data in Figure 1. Furthermore, we reviewed topic 2.1 completely to explain each SLR step better. You can see the new text in lines 81 to 129.

Response of the authors for remarks and comments - Specific Comments:

Since there are comments on the design of the article, namely:

RC 1 - Authors are also encouraged to download a Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template and use it to format their article.

AA: We downloaded the Word template and used it to adjust this article review.

RC 2 - References should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].

AA: We adjusted the format of references in the text using Mendeley software and chose the template for the journal.

RC 2 - Authors should prepare a references in accordance with the requirements of the journal, namely in this format:

Journal Articles:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

AA: All the references were reviewed and adjusted according to the required standard. We used Mendeley software to manage the references. The reference list was generated automatically using the Mendeley software.

RC 3 - Keywords must be listed separated by semicolons.

AA: We adjusted the keywords according to the comment. You can see it in line 22.

RC 4 - In the names of tables 5, 6, 7, 8, make changes, namely - instead of a colon after the Tables there should be a period.

AA: We adjusted this format in each table. Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article and its topic are very interesting and worthy of publication. Here are some comments:

Expand the introduction by citing some of the currently developed models, including their advantages and limitations.

Line 45: a period is missing at the end of the sentence.

Line 69: Citation 17 is placed after the period.

When citing works by surname and year, please also include the corresponding citation number from the bibliography, so that the source can be easily traced. This issue occurs throughout the text. For example, in line 74: “Ulrich and Eppinger (2008) and Rozenfeld et al. (2006)”. What are their numbers in the bibliography? Please make this correction throughout the text.

Table 2 and Table 3 contain too much information and are not clear for the reader. Please summarize the information to make it more comprehensible and fit it onto a single page. If necessary, provide additional details in the supplementary materials. Pay attention to the row labeled “strategy” in Table 2, where the word is not fully displayed.

Table 2: Define the acronym MDP before using it.

Line 258: The text “Clique ou toque aqui para inserire o texto..” appears.

In Tables 4, 5, and 6, “Caption” should be replaced with “Legend” The same applies to Table 7, which is currently labelled as “legend”

Line 564: There is a missing period after the bibliography and before “However”

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Reviewer 3 made one general comment on the paper and some specific comments. So, we organized our responses into general and specific comments.

Response of the authors for remarks and comments - General Comments:

Nomenclature used: Reviewer comment or highlight = RC; Answer of the authors = AA;

RC 1 - Expand the introduction by citing some of the currently developed models, including their advantages and limitations.

AA: We updated the SLR until 2024 and analyzed new articles. We explained better SLR steps in lines 82 to 119.

Response of the authors for remarks and comments - Specific Comments:

RC 1 - Line 45: a period is missing at the end of the sentence.

AA: We add the period to the sentence. You can see it in line 48.

RC 2 - Line 69: Citation 17 is placed after the period.

AA: We have revised the text and placed the end-of-sentence references before the period. This specific adjustment can be seen in line 73.

RC 3 - When citing works by surname and year, please also include the corresponding citation number from the bibliography, so that the source can be easily traced. This issue occurs throughout the text. For example, in line 74: “Ulrich and Eppinger (2008) and Rozenfeld et al. (2006)”. What are their numbers in the bibliography? Please make this correction throughout the text.

AA: All the references were reviewed and adjusted according to the required standard. We used Mendeley software to manage the references. The reference list was generated automatically using the Mendeley software. We also add reference numbers in all citations in which the surname and year appeared.

RC 4 - Table 2 and Table 3 contain too much information and are not clear for the reader. Please summarize the information to make it more comprehensible and fit it onto a single page. If necessary, provide additional details in the supplementary materials. Pay attention to the row labeled “strategy” in Table 2, where the word is not fully displayed.

AA: We have adjusted some information in Tables 2 and 3, now labeled Tables 3 and 4, to make them clearer.

RC 5 - Table 2: Define the acronym MDP before using it.

AA: We correct the acronym to PDM and defined it in lines 77 to 78.

RC 6 - Line 258: The text “Clique ou toque aqui para inserire o texto..” appears.

AA: We remove it.

RC 7 - In Tables 4, 5, and 6, “Caption” should be replaced with “Legend” The same applies to Table 7, which is currently labelled as “legend”

AA: We have adjusted this term in Tables 5 to 8.

RC 8 - Line 564: There is a missing period after the bibliography and before “However”

AA: We add the period to the sentence. You can see it in line 563.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary clarifications to the comments. The corrected version of the article can be recommended for publication in the journal «Sustainability»

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. They were very important for the final improvement of the article.