Circular Agriculture Models: A Systematic Review of Academic Contributions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Agriculture circularity is an important task and challenge to the contemporary society. The related knowledge has grown quickly, and it is very reasonable to summarize it regularly. Your manuscript presents an interesting analysis based on a bibliographical survey. The paper shares features of systematic reviews and regular research papers, and this is very good. The conceptual background is explained sufficiently. The research questions and the objective are also clear. The survey follows the PRISMA protocol, and I value highly its detailed explanation. The results and the interpretations are interesting, and these text blocks are informative. The storytelling is logical and the work is illustrated and referenced adequately. Generally, this is a perfect study suitable to the international audience of “Sustainability”. Nonetheless, some improvements and/or additional explanations are necessary.

• I value the very careful bibliographical survey and its detailed explanation. However, I have one doubt about its consistency: if you include grey literature, why you exclude non-English sources? To me, this looks like a paradox because grey literature comprises usually national and local publications appearing in national languages. So, either include grey literature and consider non-English publications, or exclude the both. I do not claim for re-doing your analysis, but I ask to provide explanations to avoid such readers’ doubts. Note also that you emphasize on Latin America, where Spanish and Portuguese are the main languages. So, why to excluded the literature published in them?
• Results: as your findings are based on the analysis of the literature, please, exemplify your main statements with the relevant literature citations.
• As you deal with only selected countries, any geographical dimension would be added to your work.
• Discussion: what are the sources of the established biases? Something went wrong (deficiency of funding, poorly-focused education, disinterest of researchers, etc.) in the international research community?
• Is it possible that the established biases are explained (at least partly) by your focus on only selected countries? I’m almost sure this is true. This can be specified as a limitation of this study in Conclusions OR Discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The manuscript addresses an important and emerging area of research; however, revisions are needed to improve its coherence, analytical depth, and practical relevance. First, the introduction should be restructured to focus more directly on circular agriculture, minimizing overextended background on circular economy. Clarifying the transition between both concepts would improve thematic focus. The methodology is detailed, but should be reorganized into clearer steps, search, filtering, and analysis, as suggested. The results section would benefit from a more structured typology of the identified circular agriculture models (e.g., by geographic context or technical scope) to enhance comparability. Additionally, the paper would be strengthened by integrating more empirical cases and regulatory references from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, as noted in the margin comments, with emphasis on scalability and replicability. Finally, the conclusions should reinforce the need for a balanced integration of all three sustainability dimensions, especially the social one, and articulate more clearly how the findings can inform public policy, local governance, and implementation strategies for rural communities. Please ensure that all reviewer comments in the document are carefully addressed and reflected in the revised version.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive systematic review of circular agriculture models, focusing on their alignment with the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social). The study is timely, given the growing emphasis on circular economy principles in agriculture to address global challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, and food security. The methodology is robust, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, and the analysis provides valuable insights into the current state of research. However, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved to enhance clarity, depth, and impact.

1. While the review mentions context-specific models, a deeper analysis of regional differences (e.g., Latin America vs. Europe) and their implications for policy/implementation would be valuable. For instance, how do socio-economic or infrastructural barriers vary across regions?
2. The conclusion briefly mentions the need for public policies, but a dedicated section with actionable recommendations (e.g., incentives, capacity-building, cross-sector collaboration) would enhance the manuscript’s practical impact.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript adopts an innovative research perspective, and its research achievements have profound practical significance. It provides a new perspective for understanding circular agriculture models and their contributions. In terms of research methods, this study analyzes the models proposed within the framework of circular agriculture, as well as how the three sustainability dimensions of environment, economy, and society are integrated into their implementation process. The full text is clearly structured, logically rigorous, and the content progresses in a step-by-step manner, ultimately deriving conclusions. But I have some doubts about the following aspects:

First, the environmental issues and the concept of circular economy mentioned in lines 41 to 51 of the introduction.

The first of these two paragraphs addresses issues related to the environment, while the second directly introduces the concept of circular economy. I believe these two paragraphs require more specific transitions to connect them seamlessly.

Second, the introduction mentions that "the regeneration of agricultural land is closely linked to food production capacity, a strategic factor for many countries' economies as it can determine the difference between food security and insecurity."

This paragraph primarily discusses how the circular economy can address climate change through certain sectors, and it also points out that the renewal of agricultural land is closely related to food production capacity, which can determine the difference between food security and insecurity. In terms of the logic of this paragraph, to make the connection within it tighter, it is recommended to elaborate on the reasons why food production capacity determines food security or insecurity in detail.

Third, lines 97 to 108 of the introduction mention the necessity of implementing circular models. On the one hand, agriculture is one of the activities most significantly impacting environmental degradation and climate change. Additionally, climate change and its effects also call for the adoption of circular agricultural models.

The descriptions in these two paragraphs are not concise enough and are overly verbose. It is recommended to integrate the reasons from both paragraphs to make the research more succinct and clear.。

Fourth, in Materials and Methods, it is stated that "The first step involves the proper formulation of the research question. In this regard, we identified notable gaps in the literature concerning circular agriculture models; therefore, this review seeks to reduce those gaps. The second step focuses on developing a search protocol."

In this paragraph, it mentions that "we identified notable gaps in the literature concerning circular agriculture models." However, it should specify what these specific gaps are.

Fifth, in "Treatment of Scopus and Web of Science Databases," it is mentioned that "Initially, the idea was to limit the analysis to Latin America."

In this paragraph, I believe that the reasons for initially limiting the analysis to Latin America should be clearly stated. Additionally, a further summary statement is needed to clarify where the final scope was determined.

Sixth, in the conclusion, it is mentioned that "Addressing these challenges requires the active involvement of both internal and external stakeholders, the establishment of clear and robust public policies, and the provision of economic and legal incentives for farmers. Technical and financial support is also crucial to ensure the successful operation of these alternative farming models, which can enhance efficiency and make a substantial contribution to biodiversity conservation and global environment protection."

This paragraph presents solutions to the current problems in implementing circular agriculture. In my opinion, when proposing policy, financial, and technical support, it is necessary to specifically illustrate the sources and methods of support from different perspectives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your revisions and careful responses! I'm very satisfied with the revised version of your manuscript.