Design Method for Platform-Aggregated Life Cycle Ecosystem
, Yasushi Umeda 1, Gaku Miyake 2, Genichiro Matsuda 2 and Akio Tajima 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for an interesting article. The authors will benefit from referring to the following for further improvement.
Introduction section
- A term or wording suddenly appears and disappears without a proper background or context. For instance, "a platform" in the Introduction, linkage seems to be missing between the sentences as follows: "In the business administration studies context, a business ecosystem is one in which stakeholders interact with each other and generate innovation and competitive advantage [7,8]. A platform serves as a key enabler of the interaction [9]." From the latter sentence, the last sentence in the first paragraph, the readers expect to have more information about the platform, which isn’t so clear from the following paragraph in this article.
The same often happens throughout the article; therefore, please consider improving the connectivity and consistency between sentences for one key message in a paragraph and between paragraphs for this article's core message.
What do you mean by the shared concept? What kind of a concept? The term, concept, is too broad to understand.
Literature review section
- Many paragraphs contain more than one idea per paragraph without context. For instance, “Various types of platforms are proposed… A network effect is a type of effect where…. Attracting users to the ecosystem by leveraging network effects is a key factor in the success of a platform-centered ecosystem”.
- I recommend that authors focus on and claim the key findings from a comprehensive literature review, not just listing the previous studies. They should also elaborate on the limitations and connect those with this study's aims.
Materials and methods section
- ” we clarify the positioning..” What is positioning? Where did the authors explain it?
- What is the originality of your proposed method? Which parts are obtained from literature, and where is the proposed one? The current article fails to distinguish between your modification and the original one. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference, and modifications should also be described. If the proposed method is based on the literature review, then the review method should also be described.
- No caption is provided for the first figure or the table; instead, the figure caption is at the bottom of the table.
Case study
I feel this study’s novelty is more in the case study part. The authors may consider shortening the former sections, elaborating more about the different scenarios, and highlighting the procedures to obtain profit and CO2 emissions for the comparison.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDesign method for platform-aggregated life cycle ecosystem
The paper introduces a valuable concept—Platform-Aggregated Life Cycle Ecosystems (PF-LCEs)—which integrates circular economy (CE) principles with business ecosystems. This is timely given the growing emphasis on sustainability and digital platforms that support the circular economy solutions.
First figure title is missing, or figure should be linked with the table bellow in the same page. in this figure / table: I advise ti put the numbers (1 to 6) in the figure, if not relevant, skip the numbers
same comment on table 2 and figure 3 or 4
The core term Platform-Aggregated Life Cycle Ecosystem (PF-LCE) is introduced as a novel concept but is poorly differentiated from existing concepts such as product-service systems (PSS), industrial symbiosis, and multi-sided platforms (MSPs). While the manuscript touches on these concepts, I advise to give more input that makes PF-LCE substantively distinct in theory or application.
Terms definition should be increased: "Origin channel," "origin PLC," and "shared concepts" are ambiguously explained. As an example, what qualifies as an "origin channel"? Why is a shoe box chosen over other potential channels? How are "shared concepts" operationalized in practice?
Figure 2 provides an overview of the six-step PF-LCE design process, but give little information and justification behind each step. For example, why is the selection of an “origin channel” such a pivotal design choice? What are the constraints or guidelines for this selection? Origine channel means EoL stock (it could have some attributes)?
The choice of the shoe box as the platform (origin channel): why not a digital app or logistics network? The paper assumes physical artifacts are the best platforms without evidence.
The economic benefits for participants (e.g., shoe providers, consumers) are asserted but not empirically validated. How are shared economic values, or conflicts of interest resolved?
What about the generalisation of the proposal: the proposal is only applied to the context—shoe storage and footwear—which is highly specific (compared to the initial example rental washing machine: electric equipments). What are the specific aspects that may not be generalize to other complex products or industrial settings. The paper lacks discussion on how this method would scale or adapt to more technically intensive sectors (e.g., electronics, automotive).
The use of LCS-ISS for simulating environmental and economic impacts is a strength. But the study seems exclusively based on simulated data. Are their real life validation (e.g., real-world pilot tests, stakeholder interviews, lifecycle inventory datasets)? This point weakens the reliability of the conclusions.
As simulation apporach, we could expect a sensitivity or uncertainty analysis for the simulation results. At least a qualification of tje quality of the models used and their assumptions (e.g., costs, usage rates, data sharing mechanisms).
You should improve your justification and argumentation:
- Claims of economic and environmental improvements are based on assumed scenarios: for instance, reductions in COâ‚‚ emissions are partly attributed to decreased consumer store visits—a behavioral assumption not validated or contextualized with data.
- Governance and Data Ownership may be a critical issue to make this proposal accepted.The authors do not point data governance, interoperability standards, or ownership rights, which are critical in any platform ecosystem.
Network effects and market dynamic are briefly mentioned in the conclusion. Why dos this point arise so late? I can imagine that it is a critical gap for a platform-based concept.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper addresses a new and timely topic: the integration of multiple product life cycles (PLCs) via a platform-based ecosystem to achieve circular economy (CE) outcomes. The authors propose a new design method for aggregated platform life cycle ecosystems (PF-LCEs), presenting both a conceptual framework and a case-study simulation to validate its effectiveness.
The topic is relevant to sustainability researchers and industrial practitioners who wish to develop systemic circular economy strategies. However, while the general concept is sound, the manuscript exhibits significant organisational and clarity issues that require revision to be fully coherent and ready for publication.
The abstract clearly states the purpose of the paper and suggests a case study involving data and parts sharing. However, it could have benefited from a brief mention of the specific industries or product types considered in the case study to provide immediate context for the reader.
The introduction effectively sets the stage by emphasising the growing importance of the circular economy for sustainable development and pointing out the limitations of existing methods. The authors clearly articulate the need for a new approach that takes into account the interactions between different product life cycles.
The proposed design method is the central contribution of the article. The six-step design method is logically structured and justified through case studies and simulations. Although the description appears logically structured, the article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of each step.
Although the article notes that the company operating the origin channel and the one managing the origin PLC may differ, it does not elaborate on the management structures or strategies for resolving conflicts. Given the central role of platforms, this management ambiguity is a gap.
The case studies on commuter and sports shoes demonstrate a meaningful application of the PF-LCE concept, potentially guiding real-world industry collaboration. Although the case study is detailed, the generalisation of the design method to other industries is not well discussed. The broader application should be discussed explicitly.
The discussion section should explore the implications of the case study findings in more depth and explicitly discuss the limitations of the proposed method. Furthermore, a comparison with existing approaches and a clearer articulation of the novelties and advantages of the platform-aggregated lifecycle ecosystem project would strengthen the contribution of the article to the field.
Several issues reduce the overall quality and clarity of the article:
- Table 1 Caption: As noted, Table 1 is presented without a caption.
- Figure 1 Caption: The caption for Figure 1 appears to be misplaced.
- Table 4: Scenario 5 and Scenario 6: The descriptions for Scenario 5 and Scenario 6 in Table 4 are identical.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately attended to the comment. I believe the paper is suitable for publication. Still, the article will benefit from English editing, including typo check, etc.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is generally well-written. Still, it will benefit from having a professional editing service.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors"Design Method for Platform-Aggregated Life Cycle Ecosystem"
The authors improved the quality and description of the work done.
This work illustrates the conceptual framework (PF-LCE) for integrating multiple product life cycles (PLCs) via digital platform, addressing gaps in circular economy (CE) literature. The focus on synergies across PLCs through goods/data exchange is innovative.
It sounds very interesting, I do not completely understand why the shoe case study is selected to demonstrate, want, it does not seems to be a product so much circular / regenerated oriented. May be some specif consideration in the Japanese context are missing for my non japanese culture reading.
The four-step design method provides a structured approach for ecosystem conceptualization, bridging business ecosystems, industrial symbiosis, and life cycle design.
The use of simulation (LCS-ISS) to evaluate economic and environmental outcomes gives figures and results to demonstrate the theoretical framework.
I think that the authors gave a clearer differentiation of PF-LCE from existing concepts (e.g., business ecosystems, PSS) in sections 3.1 & 3.2.
I miss some improvement on the definition for the platform. The paper classifies the platform as a multi-sided platform (MSP), but its technical architecture (e.g., digital vs. physical infrastructure) is not so clear. Is the "shoe exchange storage" purely physical, or does it include digital interfaces (e.g., IoT, blockchain)?
Concerning the synergy mechanisms: the paper claims synergies across PLCs but lacks granularity on how these synergies are quantified (e.g., specific metrics for "economic benefits" beyond profit) and detailed synergy of product. The expected KPIs could be more explicit, so as the product detail. Are these aspects generic, or when does the specificity of the case study stop?
The trade-offs in data pricing are mentioned, and presented as win-win outcomes.
I am not a shoe sector expert. this industry case study, while illustrative, feels tangential to the paper’s broader CE ambitions. indeed, shoes are low-complexity products (multi materials, mainly assembly by glue or sewing solution), with limited number of components and material diversity. It raises some questions about the method’s scalability to sectors with more complex product and higher environmental impact (e.g., electronics, automotive).
I advise you to better justify why shoes are a representative case for you proposal, point the aspects that you wanted to demonstrate, and open discussion to wider applicability. May be, data access possibility is may be a good reason.
You open data governance aspects in the interview (Section 5), and notes security risks. But this aspect is dismissed briefly. It is linked with data exchange, discuss standards (DPP) or governance models (federated data sharing).
COâ‚‚ reductions are linked to fewer store visits. A stronger justification would need a lifecycle assessment approach. This could open the identification of COâ‚‚ emmissions and life phases (manufacturing), and balance the impact of more IT/platform infrastructure (sensors, scanners)?
How modular design is applyed in shoe industry.
The equation in the complementary document are not readable, please provide a pdf version. The references in the complementary doc may be verified .. 6065 - 6616 ???
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
