Analyzing Decision-Making Factors of Green Design for Kid’s Toys Based on the Concept of Product Lifecycle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, after reading the manuscript, I recommend the authors review the content in order to include the aforementioned topic about SDGs, inverse logistic and ISO14006.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!
Our have responded in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My biggest concern for this paper, as a reader, is that the paper does not present a compelling research question. As a result, the paper reads more like a lab report documenting what you did. What is the problem that bothers you and you want to solve through the research? What is the key question that drives the research methods? I think if you can clarify your research question in the introduction and frame it within the literature you provided, you will find the rest of the sections become much more exciting to write.
One suggestion for the overall structure of the paper. The paper put forth a model (figure 4), which seems to be the most important figure of this paper. You can put this figure in the introduction, and present it to the readers from the very beginning. Then use the rest of the sections to demonstrate how you come up with this model. This way, the paper itself will become more impactful and more exciting to read.
The following are some detailed suggestions:
Re-write the first few sentences of the abstract to be more impactful. You could say something about how plastic and unsustainable manufacturing contribute to the climate crisis. This will make the research more impactful. Similar suggestions for the introduction.
In the introduction, you may want to talk about, or how would you respond to the issue of capitalist consumerism, which in my opinion underpins many of the symptoms the authors are laying out.
Check English writing. Sometimes, the use of terms is not accurate. Ask a native speaker to proofread.
In lines 49-50, do you have a citation to support the numbers? Or is this the finding of this paper?
Check citation style, like in lInes 109-111. What is the citation style used by the journal? Usually, you just say the author's name directly when you want to cite them: "Based on the mentioned 109 4R, Jone Doe put forward the 6R theory. [15]" Check other similar instances.
In lines 143-144, for the etymology of "toy", do you have a reference, like OED? Otherwise, this sounds like a bold claim.
In section 3.2., it may be helpful to include some examples of the questions asked in the interview.
5.2 suggestions section can be written in a more positive way. I understand this is to reflect on the paper's shortcomings, but it can be presented as opportunities rather than omissions. Say something like:
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!
Our have responded in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper analyzes the decision factors affecting green design for kid's toys based on product life cycle theory. This work is good and has an advantage, but the following are some comments that need to address.
1- No clarity about the selection of experts. How are they selected? What is their profile? Author/s need to provide data for all experts.
2- The introduction part needs to be improved, what other studies were lacking that you have tried to address? It fails to identify the need for research.
3- In studies like this, the importance of research hypotheses and questions is very high. Author/s need to provide research hypotheses and questions.
4- Section 2. Is well researched, but the text part of sub-section 2.4. is very weak. I suggest to extend this sub-section to justify the novelty.
5- The abstract is not deep enough and is not well prepared. Please try to re-write it better. It generally includes background, problem, method, and conclusion.
6- The conclusion part also needs to be revised; which questions are answered, and what is the paper's value/originality/contribution. I strongly recommend the authors to provide a more comprehensive discussion.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!
Our have responded in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
· Revise the first line of Abstract, Line 11.
· Line 13-15, long sentence, not meaningful, needs revision. Please improve the abstract. The abstract should have one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. In the abstract, please indicate the achievements from your study that are relevant to the journal scope.
· Start of the Introduction, please don’t make sub-sections.
· Line 44-47 is without citation; if you don’t want to add a reference, a link is missing from the next paragraph.
· Section 1.2 is written well. Still, the study’s intended contribution can be more emphasized and added. Even this Section can be moved after a review of the Literature, after problem formulation.
· Write down the organization of the rest of the paper after the problem formulation statement and the study’s objective. Define clearly research questions and objectives.
· Avoid lumping references [16-18], [24-27], [33-35]. etc. Instead, summarize the main contribution of each referenced paper in a separate sentence. Then, please carefully go through the entire manuscript.
· The link is missing between Section 3 and 3.1.
· What is the source of decision factors?
· Basis of selecting only 8 decision factors?
· Section 5 must be rearranged. Suggestions and Diagram?
· In your conclusions, please discuss the implications of your research. However, discussions and findings must go deeper. It would be more interesting if the authors focused more on the significance of their findings regarding the importance of the interrelationship between the obtained results.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!
Our have responded in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, after reading the updated version of the manuscript, I would like to congrats author for their research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!
We have replied in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments and the manuscript has been improved after the revision.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!
We have replied in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
