Review of Water Reuse from a Circular Economy Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article brings new interesting perspectives and relevant information coming from a systematic literature review to understand the effect of this steep increase in interest in the concept of CE in the water and wastewater sector and the opportunities and risks of such an economy. However, there is room for improvement in this paper using a broader conceptual and theoretical framework to integrate the economic, legal and institutional, technological, political and environmental dimensions, which are relevant to figure out the future behavior of the water and wastewater circular economy. I am providing several general and specific suggestions below in the form of notes.
GENERAL COMMENTS
In the paper, the use of circular economy is a more recent term and barely used in the engineering field, so I think there are missing search criteria concepts like: water cascading, water efficiency among others.
The identification of general trends and the building up pf some clusters or categories to facilitate and foster the public policies development should be a must that is not included or barely referred in the paper.
Why are you suggesting three different sources of literature reviewed if all of them are coming from academic literature from the databases (articles, book chapters and conference papers)
A full language proofreading review is required to improve the quality of the manuscript, there are some missing punctuation marks in the manuscript also.
Abstract needs to be reviewed to include the main results and conclusions of the research paper in detail.
The conclusions should be clarified in order to give answer to the aims of the paper referred in the Abstract in regards of its overall relevance.
Conclusions section needs to be reformulated because it is not clear and it does not answer clearly the research question.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Research methods and data
Line 95-96, Why a, b and e and not c. Moreover, what about the traditional scientific literature? Are they the custom research tools? It is the first time I read the academic databases referred as it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you for the comments on our manuscript, we hope that the corretions that we made will meet your expectations.
Please see the attachment with our responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
this is an interesting work but, in my opinion, there are SEVERAL aspects to change before publication.
Considering the topic, it is coherent with the journal.
1) EXPLORE, IMPROVE, ADD SOMETHING ABOUT CIRCULAR ECONOMY. It is a wide concept, a wide aspect… you should add 200 words in a general way about it.
a. Suggested references: Gazzola, P., Pavione, E., Pezzetti, R., & Grechi, D. (2020). Trends in the fashion industry. The perception of sustainability and circular economy: A gender/generation quantitative approach. Sustainability, 12(7), 2809. Ferioli, M., Gazzola, P., Grechi, D., & Vătămănescu, E. M. (2022). Sustainable behaviour of B Corps fashion companies during Covid-19: A quantitative economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 374, 134010. Colasante, A., & D'Adamo, I. (2021). The circular economy and bioeconomy in the fashion sector: emergence of a “sustainability bias”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 329, 129774. Corvellec, H., Stowell, A. F., & Johansson, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), 421-432. Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C., & Pettersen, I. N. (2018). Consumption in the circular economy: A literature review. Sustainability, 10(8), 2758.
b. There are several works, you should put the role of the circular economy, pros and cons.
2) This review followed the standard principles normally used in a systematic review 83 and meta-analysis (PRISMA): Explain more the PRISMA METHOD. I know what it is… but it is mandatory to explain in 100word the process-the protocol. You have to add some references about this method.
3) The analysis is good. I’m wondering about the tables… are they in the correct style?
4) Table 2. Leading authors in terms of number of publications=> The 34 are people with only one paper… is it correct?
5) PAGE 5 line 144-148=> WRONG FONT
6) Figure 4. Distribution of data by area of study. => bad quality=> CHANGE
7) Table 3. Total of documents per research motivation=> Change table it is too small… maybe it has a wrong style for this journal.
8) Improve conclusion- create a new paragraph about FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (200Words) and LIMITS (150words).
To conclude: it is a quite good work and after these major changes will be considered for publication.
Best
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We thank you for the comments on our manuscript. We hope that our response will meet your expectations.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
the available file is a PDF with comments (or changes) and reviews. It seems a print of a word file.
You have definitely improved the work. I am satisfied with the changes.
1) REFERENCES ARE NOT ADEQUATE CONSIDERING FONT AND DIMENSION 2) FIGURE 1 HAS WORDS IN WHITE AND BLACK, PLEASE UNIFORM THE COLOR 3) THE QUALITY OF FIGURE 4 IS LOW, IF POSSIBLE, IMPROVE THE FIGURE.
Best
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachament.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
