A Conceptual Framework for the Upcycling Supply Chain in the Wood Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (3271420) entitled “A Conceptual Framework for the Upcycling Supply Chain in the Wood Sector” by Ana Mojica et. al. proposed a conceptual framework based on merging traditional wood upcycling supply chains with different strategies and secondary material recovery. The proposed framework addresses the fragmented analysis of supply chain components in existing literature, emphasizing the need for collaboration among stakeholders such as manufacturers, waste management companies, and design innovators.

The framework encompasses four key aspects: restructuring the supply chain, organizing agents for valorizing secondary wood, developing digital tools, and aligning stakeholders globally.

The work presented here is interesting and well written. However, the manuscript needs minor revision in its current form.

 

Specific comments about these issues are as following:

 

(1) The abstract part is too long, please delete any background and introduction parts.

(2) Figure 1 is redundant since the information is already in Table 1.

(3) In Table 3, I don’t understand why the word “Stakehold-ers” are broken up.

(4) In Table 4, the refs number should be put on the right side of the table.

(5) Please make sure the Figure 4 and Figure 5 are not generated by AI.

Author Response

Comments (1) The abstract part is too long, please delete any background and introduction parts.

Response 1: the abstract has been rewritten to make it shorter.

Comments (2) Figure 1 is redundant since the information is already in Table 1.

Response 2: Figure 1 was deleted. 

Comments (3) In Table 3, I don’t understand why the word “Stakehold-ers” are broken up.

Response 3: This issue was fixed

Comments (4) In Table 4, the refs number should be put on the right side of the table.

Response 4: The reference numbers were placed on the right side as requested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The citations do not seem to be in the right order.

2.      Although I could understand the objective of the work, which is to analyze conceptually the chain in wood sector by using the concepts of recovering and upcycling, it is not clear for me what methodological procedures the authors adopted for doing that. Hence, I kindly recommend the authors to create a Section just to present the Methodology, explain how they analyzed the data, using which tools, and so other relevant information…

3.      Several points of the literature review are well stated and explained. However, the manuscript lacks a deeper and more critical analysis of the literature. I consider that once the methodology is explained, it will be easier to draw conclusions from the information of the literature.

4.      The authors could bring (present) some practical examples or implications.

 

5.      Regarding the References, I could not understand if they are from well stated journals. Some are from government documents, which is great. But I could not identify manuscripts from relevant journals. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The citations do not seem to be in the right order.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have left the quotes in the order in which they correspond.

Comments 2:Although I could understand the objective of the work, which is to analyze conceptually the chain in wood sector by using the concepts of recovering and upcycling, it is not clear for me what methodological procedures the authors adopted for doing that. Hence, I kindly recommend the authors to create a Section just to present the Methodology, explain how they analyzed the data, using which tools, and so other relevant information…
Response 2: 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have created an action research section to be able to explain a little more about the methodological process to obtain the conceptual framework, which can be found in section 5, and section 3 also describes how the strategy was.

Comments 3: Several points of the literature review are well stated and explained. However, the manuscript lacks a deeper and more critical analysis of the literature. I consider that once the methodology is explained, it will be easier to draw conclusions from the information of the literature.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In line 858 we have made a conclusion of the literature review as well as of the methodology used in general.

Comments 4:The authors could bring (present) some practical examples or implications.
Response 4: In line 481 you can find important information about implications and examples in addition to section 7, which talks specifically about implications.

Comments 5:Regarding the References, I could not understand if they are from well stated journals. Some are from government documents, which is great. But I could not identify manuscripts from relevant journals.
Response 5: Paras, M. K., & Curteza, A. Revisiting Upcycling Phenomena: A Concept in the Clothing Industry. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management. (2018). 22(1), 46-58.
Farrant, L.; Tsingou; E., & Rosenthal, D. The Role of Upcycling in the Circular Economy. In: The Circular Economy: A New Framework for Sustainable Devel-opment. (2021). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer considers the topic studied to be timely and relevant. After reviewing the references, a growing and current interest in the subject is observed, which aligns well with the content of the authors' paper.

 

The reviewer highlights the quality of the work in terms of its content and thematic development, deeming it suitable for publication in the journal.

 

To further complete the review, the following points are proposed based on aspects identified as improvable during the analysis of the paper and the references consulted:

 

Line 482, Title 4.3:

“Are all wastes in the wood chain suitable for recycling?”

It is possible that not all wastes in the wood chain are suitable for recycling. Therefore, by adopting a holistic perspective, as proposed by the authors, it would be valuable to identify the need to develop similar guidelines or strategies to determine products at the endo of the service life, that can be reused through high added value designs.

 

Line 560, Title 4.5:

There is currently a segment of the wood chain that is already highly specialized in recycling waste wood or remnants from wood production. The authors should consider this when proposing shortcomings or improvements to the upcycling strategy. A potential conflict of interest may arise between the goals of recycling and reuse.

 

Lines 608–652:

The purpose of upcycling in some sections is not entirely clear to the reviewer. In the wood chain, most by-products (e.g., sawdust, chips) are typically recycled, as their condition often precludes direct reuse without significant transformation. It is not clear whether this waste should be included in upcycling. As such, these materials are not considered upcycled. Similarly, finished wood products at the end of their useful life are often recycled (e.g., for energy purposes). The authors are encouraged to address these points and focus the concept of upcycling on final products that are genuinely susceptible to efficient reuse.

 

Line 581, Figure 5 Diagram:

The reviewer notes the absence of the pulp industry (first level) and the paper and cardboard industry (second level) in the diagram in Figure 5. It is unclear why these were not included. The diagram appears overly simplified and should be more comprehensive to reflect the entire wood chain accurately.

Author Response

Comments 1:Line 482, Title 4.3:
“Are all wastes in the wood chain suitable for recycling?”
It is possible that not all wastes in the wood chain are suitable for recycling. Therefore, by adopting a holistic perspective, as proposed by the authors, it would be valuable to identify the need to develop similar guidelines or strategies to determine products at the endo of the service life, that can be reused through high added value designs. Response 1: thank you for pointing this out. we agree with this comment. Line 667 wrote important points to consider what the reviewers mentioned.

Comments 2:Line 560, Title 4.5:
There is currently a segment of the wood chain that is already highly specialized in recycling waste wood or remnants from wood production. The authors should consider this when proposing shortcomings or improvements to the upcycling strategy. A potential conflict of interest may arise between the goals of recycling and reuse.
Response 2: On line 730, section 6 you can find important information regarding the point mentioned in the review.

Comments 3: Lines 608–652:
The purpose of upcycling in some sections is not entirely clear to the reviewer. In the wood chain, most by-products (e.g., sawdust, chips) are typically recycled, as their condition often precludes direct reuse without significant transformation. It is not clear whether this waste should be included in upcycling. As such, these materials are not considered upcycled. Similarly, finished wood products at the end of their useful life are often recycled (e.g., for energy purposes). The authors are encouraged to address these points and focus the concept of upcycling on final products that are genuinely susceptible to efficient reuse.
Response 3: Line 614-621 can provide clarification on this issue, as it is important to note that sometimes some products go directly to recycling and do not undergo upcycling.

Comments 4:Line 581, Figure 5 Diagram:
The reviewer notes the absence of the pulp industry (first level) and the paper and cardboard industry (second level) in the diagram in Figure 5. It is unclear why these were not included. The diagram appears overly simplified and should be more comprehensive to reflect the entire wood chain accurately.
Response 4: Figure 5 has been modified and is now Figure 6, modified with the suggested information.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 
Thank you for your explanations.

I have no more comments.