Circularity and Digitalisation in German Textile Manufacturing: Towards a Blueprint for Strategy Development and Implementation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The research is interesting as the textile industry is growing in Europe and Germany is focusing on this industry based on technology and circularity to make it more efficient. The title looks clear, but the abstract does not discuss this industry's problems. It talks about directly specific findings and contributions to the literature.
2. The introduction is very brief in light of total paper discussions. It needs to add some historical viewpoint and show the necessity of CE and technology affiliation to do better. This paper needs to establish the circular economy (CE) as a solution for the textile industry in Germany.
3. Section 2.1 did not close the statement immediately after providing lots of information.
4. Section 2.2 needs to provide recent CE studies based on the German T&C industry and indicate where the problem is.
5. Figures 1 and 2 used references to their original work. The question is, are these figures brought as they are? Where is the extension or modification based on the current diagram? If it is as it was, there is no need to bring it here. There are many discussions in Figure 2, and the reader has to get the sense as quickly as possible from the discussions.
6. Table 3's discussion is confusing. The authors state that Germans are applying these DTs but are unsure about CE implications, which is a generic statement without exploring such research.
7. The research questions are well-aligned with the study. Briefly explaining their relevance to CE and digital technology integration could add useful context.
8. The qualitative approach is okay, but more specifics on sample selection, data analysis methods, and limitations would add transparency and rigor. Too much information distracts readers. Concrete and brief writing will help them understand the flow much better. Reduce wordy items and discuss them to the point.
9. Where is the reference in lines 317 to 322? Same for 325-333; are these from interviews? It can be referred to literature, even if it is from the interview. It will enhance rigor.
10. A comparative analysis across companies and value chain stages in the result section could provide deeper insights. Adding visuals to summarize findings for each CE strategy would enhance clarity.
11. Section 4 is overwhelming. Make it concise and consistent. Readers will get tired of diverse information.
12. Tables and figures are informative, especially in mapping CE practices and digital technology usage. Some could benefit from more precise labels or captions directly linking them to CE strategies and referring them to practical implacability from the industry or literature.
13. The discussion connects findings to the literature and highlights industry challenges in adopting CE and DT practices. Again, this section looks like a generic discussions. It would be easy for the readers to use the findings or discussion points in numbers or a table as a summary.
14. This paper is 37 pages long and contains many ideas in one paper. It would be great if the authors considered priority factors or agendas to make the paper interesting and worthy to the research community. Focusing on the paper is hard because it talks about diverse things.
15. The conclusion could more directly emphasize practical implications for industry stakeholders. Recommendations for future studies should be based on identified research gaps.
-
The reviewer did not check plagiarism or AI; please do it once it is finalized.
-
Need to check English proofreading once it comes to the final stage.
Author Response
Please see uploaded file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented an article “Circularity and Digitalisation in German Textile Manufacturing: Towards a Blueprint for Strategy Development and Implementation”, I appreciate the effort you have put into conducting this research and compiling the findings. However, the following points needs to be addressed:
1. The manuscript is properly written in a good English and need no major revision.
2. Authors could change the figure 2 and 3 to the color version in order to improve the readability.
3. Provide some pictorial or tabular data form examples in section 5 and section 4 in order to improve the understanding of the topic results.
Author Response
Please see uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see notes on the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
