Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and coherent concerning its scope and methodological approach. Since the paper is a review type of the study its methodology is well selected and used in a just and logical manner. The literature review process is presented in transparent and reliable way and it is well illustrated and explained. The literature review is the very core of the paper and it is comprehensively and rigorously made. Perhaps the background discussion goes too deeply, and for example presenting social and economic adoption of LCA methodology does not really have reference within the following review. Perhaps the introduction and background could be limited to the issues that are actually addressed within review part. Otherwise, it would be advisable to refer to these issues, i.e. S-LCA or LCC, within the results section. Of course, this is just a disputable remark and does not need to be addressed, especially if the issue was not investigated.

The discussion and conclusion are based on the investigated sources and analysis was performed with regard to extensive number of parameters. The number of parameters is an incremental advantage of the study and makes it a valuable guide for all types of LCA software users. Also, the flowcharts that make practical guidance for software users are added value deliverables of the paper. Perhaps the way of finalizing the flowcharts with single software proposal is beneficial on one hand but also a bit problematic on the other. I guess more wide recommendation approach should be used, and instead of giving single recommendation some graduation or ranking approach could be used. Anyway, this is a good application of the review that was made and could be very helpful for decision making with software selection. Since the results are literature review oriented only there is only a few space for the issues that has been approaching recently. The example of such an issue that is not addressed (or not visible within the results) is the changing market model of LCA software. This is mainly related to the subscription model that was recently introduced into popular software (i.e. SimaPro new sales model), introduction of cloud based services and some ongoing fragmentation and personalization of the software. I understand why this issues are not raised within review section but since the paper is addressing software selection it should also refer on up-to-date purchase options. This could be done within conclusion section.

Besides the abovementioned remarks I find the text interesting and compelling and I recommend it for publication. Some minor remarks have been additionally put within the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment:

The literature review process is presented in a transparent and reliable manner and is well illustrated and explained. The literature review is the core of the article and is carried out comprehensively and rigorously. Perhaps the background discussion is too extensive and, for example, the presentation of the social and economic adoption of the LCA methodology is not really referenced in the subsequent review. Perhaps the introduction and context could be limited to the issues that are actually addressed in the review section. Otherwise, it would be advisable to refer to these issues, i.e., S-LCA or LCC, in the results section. Of course, this is merely a debatable observation and need not necessarily be addressed, particularly if the issue was not investigated.

Response:
We are grateful for the detailed analysis and for the observations presented. Considering the suggestion regarding the inclusion of the terms “social and economic adoption of the LCA methodology”, “S-LCA” and “LCC” in the introduction and context of the article, the group decided to remove them, since they were not directly addressed in the literature review and could generate disconnection with the analysis carried out. Thus, the introduction and context were adjusted in order to maintain a strict focus on the issues effectively explored in the body of the study.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

As the results are guided solely by the bibliographic review, there is little room for issues that have been addressed more recently. One example of an issue not addressed (or not visible in the results) is the change in the LCA software market model. This is mainly related to the subscription model recently introduced in popular software (i.e., the new sales model of SimaPro), the introduction of cloud-based services, and the continuous fragmentation and customisation of the software. I understand why these issues are not addressed in the review section, but since the article deals with software selection, it should also mention updated purchasing options. This could be done in the conclusions section.

Response:
With regard to the recommendation to include in the article recent market developments that may influence the selection of LCA software, we acknowledge the practical relevance of these aspects for the decision-making process, even though they were not identified in the bibliographic corpus of the systematic review. Accordingly, we added a new paragraph in the Conclusion section (lines 863 to 874) to address this point, also highlighting it as an indication for future research (lines 884 to 897). This addition discusses the recent transition of some tools, such as SimaPro, to subscription-based licensing models, the expansion of cloud-based services, and the ongoing sectoral fragmentation and customisation of LCA software. The decision to insert this information exclusively in the Conclusion was intentional, so as to clearly separate the findings derived from the reviewed literature from the contextual updates provided by the authors, thereby enhancing the practical value of the article.

Reviewer’s comment:

Furthermore, the flowcharts, which offer practical guidance to software users, are value-added outputs of the article. Perhaps the way of finalising the flowcharts with a single software proposal is beneficial on one hand, but also somewhat problematic on the other. I believe a broader recommendation approach should be employed and, rather than providing a single recommendation, some form of grading or classification could be used. In any case, this is a good application of the review carried out and may be very useful for decision-making in software selection.

Response:
We appreciate the observation regarding the limitation of concluding the flowcharts with a single software recommendation. To address this suggestion, we broadened the approach adopted, structuring it into recommendation levels (basic, intermediate, and advanced). In this way, instead of a single indication, we proposed a comparative and graduated guidance, based on objective criteria (cost, usability, robustness, integration, and sectoral applicability). This change reinforces the practical usefulness of the study, enabling different user profiles to identify the most appropriate alternative for their context and to migrate between solutions as they evolve in maturity and needs.

Comments on the suggestions included in the attachment:

With regard to the notes in the body of the text, we had previously positioned the definition of the categories “paid, free, specific, and experimental or educational tools” in another chapter of the manuscript. However, in order to improve readability and considering the relevance of this differentiation, we incorporated this information directly into the main section of the article (lines 209 to 224).

Finally, we clarify that the unification of exclusion criteria II and IV was carried out consciously by the group, bearing in mind that the difference between them was minimal, and we are grateful for the observation that confirmed the pertinence of this decision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review addresses an interesting and topical issue regarding the choice of LCA software, proposing a decision flowchart with different versions, depending on requirements.
The article has an excellent methodological structure and a good, up-to-date bibliography. The systematic review was carried out using PRISMA software, ensuring methodological rigor. However, some aspects could be improved:
abstract: integrate the abstract with some theoretical specifications found in both the introduction and the background. Specify the presence of the decision flowchart in the abstract.
Introduction and background: there are theoretical overlaps in the two paragraphs and, conversely, the introduction lacks a description and structure of the article, the objectives and final results, and its implications (indicated later).
Decision flow chart: add more descriptions for the practical application of the flow chart in order to ensure its effectiveness.
The structure of the article seems to be scattered, especially in the Materials and Methods paragraph. It would be good to subdivide the paragraph, describing and explaining the relevant sections in order to improve the readability and comprehension of the text.

 

Author Response

We thank you for the observation regarding the need to integrate into the abstract theoretical specifications already present in the introduction and the context, as well as the explicit mention of the decision flowchart. In response to this recommendation, we retained the original content of the abstract in its entirety and added information on the general characteristics of the software analysed, the difficulties faced in the decision-making process for selecting the most appropriate tool, and the inclusion of the decision flowchart as support in this process. This flowchart, developed from the results obtained, was described in the abstract as a visual resource designed to guide the selection of LCA software in a more transparent, systematic, and contextually aligned manner (lines 31 to 36).

In response to your comments on the overlap of information between the Introduction and the Context section, we conducted a detailed review to eliminate theoretical repetitions, maintaining the logical flow and integrity of the manuscript. The conceptual definitions of LCA were concisely retained in the Introduction, while the Context section was adjusted to focus specifically on the research setting, gaps in the literature, and sectoral challenges, with all relevant references preserved through reallocation where necessary. Furthermore, to maintain coherence after the removal of the paragraph beginning with “Although LCA can be performed manually…”, we inserted a transition sentence that connects the discussion on the importance of LCA to the subsequent classification of the available computational tools. These changes were aimed at ensuring fluency, avoiding redundancies, and preserving the scientific depth of the manuscript.

Additionally, some paragraphs from the Materials and Methods section were relocated to other sections in order to improve the flow of the text. Responding to the request to “add more descriptions for the practical application of the flowchart to ensure its effectiveness”, we included a new paragraph at the end of the subsection “Practical Guidance: Flowchart for Selecting an LCA Tool” (lines 656 to 668).

This addition presents concrete examples of situations in which decision-makers would opt for each of the three levels of complexity of the flowchart (Figures 4, 5, and 6), linking each decision to real-world scenarios of use, such as exploratory studies, sectoral analyses, and strategic evaluations for certification or regulatory compliance. In this way, the content of the flowchart gains greater practical applicability, enabling users to align the selection of LCA tools with their technical, operational, and strategic objectives.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a contribution to the field of sustainability science by addressing the complex challenge of LCA software selection. Its systematic approach and the development of a practical decision-support flowchart are notable strengths. However, the review identifies several areas for improvement, particularly concerning numerical consistency in methodological reporting, the granularity of data presentation, and editorial precision. These issues, if addressed, would significantly enhance the paper's scientific rigour and practical utility.

The research questions are articulated with sufficient clarity, focusing on the identification of characteristics, strengths, and limitations of LCA tools, and the subsequent provision of selection guidance. The adoption of a systematic literature review methodology, including adherence to the PRISMA protocol, is an appropriate choice for addressing these objectives.

Recommendations:

All key abbreviations, such as LCA, CAD, BIM, ESG, ERP, and EPD, should be defined upon their first appearance in the main text. (e.g. page 2)

It is essential to carefully re-verify all numerical data presented in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) and the relevant text on page 6. ('After this screening, 39 (174-140=34) studies remained for full-text analysis')

Non-English text, within tables (e.g., "Constante (pela comunidade)" in Table 4), must be accurately translated to English.  

Consider refining the thematic categorization approach. While the currently dominant single category offers simplicity, considering a multi-labeling system or multi-level categorization (e.g., by primary and secondary thematic areas) could provide a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of the multifaceted applicability of LCA tools, particularly in interdisciplinary studies. This would better reflect the software's versatility. (page 7)

If the existing literature allows, extract or infer more granular information regarding the "Sectors Served" by the tools. - Table 4.

I was unable to find in the text confirmation of the following statement from page 17: 'The study also highlights the growing need for integration with other technological platforms, such as BIM, ERP, and CAD systems, to streamline modeling processes and increase practical applicability in real projects.'

In the conclusions section, the authors of the paper did not point out any disadvantages or limitations of their approach and did not indicate any possible further directions of research.

Author Response

We are grateful for the detailed observations, which have contributed to the substantial improvement of the manuscript. With regard to abbreviations (LCA, CAD, BIM, ESG, ERP, EPD), we thoroughly revised the entire text to ensure that each acronym is properly defined at its first occurrence in the body of the article. We also translated all excerpts originally presented in other languages into English with precision, including adjustments in tables (e.g., “Constante (pela comunidade)” in Table 4). As for the data presented in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) and in the text on page 6, we conducted a new verification: we corrected the initial number retrieved from the Web of Science platform to 132 articles (in line with Table 1), adjusted the calculation following the exclusion of 140 studies (resulting correctly in 34 documents, not 22), and confirmed that the final number of studies analysed is 42.

Regarding thematic categorisation, we acknowledge the relevance of the suggestion and, although Table 4 was intended to synthesise the intrinsic characteristics of the tools (methodology, databases, modelling capacity, integration, etc.) rather than the specific application context, we updated Figure 2 to adopt multiple labelling/multilevel categorisation. In this new approach, the primary category represents the predominant thematic area, while the secondary category indicates additional sectors/fields addressed in the same study, thereby enabling a clearer visualisation of the versatility of the tools. Figure 2 was thus expanded with thematic sub-areas, complementing the previous version.

In relation to the statement concerning “the growing need for integration with other technological platforms, such as BIM, ERP and CAD systems” (page 17), we added a new paragraph immediately before this sentence, presenting evidence drawn from specific studies (Silva et al., 2019; Mosovsky et al., 2001; Iswara et al., 2020) that address the interoperability between LCA software and these platforms. This addition ensures that the conclusion is underpinned by both theoretical and practical foundations (lines 581 to 597).

In the conclusion section, and in response to the recommendation, we now explicitly indicate the limitations of the approach, such as the exclusive reliance on bibliographic data and the need for updating the framework in light of the evolution of the tools, and we propose future directions, including empirical validation in real projects across different sectors, the investigation of new forms of integration with other technological platforms, and the use of multi-criteria methods to support decision-making. We further broadened the analysis to consider social aspects (S-LCA) and economic perspectives, strengthening the multidimensional view of the assessment (lines 864 to 897). These changes were incorporated into a new paragraph placed immediately before the final paragraph of the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf