The Circular Economy Practices in the European Union: Eco-Innovation and Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) The method of literature search and selection for this study is insufficiently described. Please detail it and describe step by step how it was relized.
2) Please adjust Table 1, currently the width of the rows is inappropriate.
3) Please correct the numbering of the drawings, currently in the manuscript there are 2 figures numbered 1
4) Second figure - The ci value
The figure needs significant corrections, the colors are not very diverse and, in the case of black-and-white printing, almost impossible to distinguish. Please, in addition to a diverse color scheme, use pattern filling in the bars of the chart.
5) Please adjust the manusctipt according to the journal's guidelines.
6) The layout of the manusctipt is inadequate. Methodology section should be described earlier
Author Response
Dear Professor,
thank You for Your time and efforts on reviewing our article.
In this article were made major improvements, according Your recommendations.
I hope it could suit Your requirements.
Thank You for Your time.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are some gaps and ambiguities in the article that should be supplemented and corrected to increase the value of the publication.
1. Abstract. Row 11. There is no information about the method according to which the qualitative study on the degree of introduction of eco-innovation in EU countries was conducted.
2. Row 69. The article mentioned the analysis of research, but there is no information about what research it was and what method was used.
3. Row74. Please explain what type of organizations you mean.
4. Row 255. Table No1 needs to be sorted out. The table should be expanded to make the content readable. There is no information for what year the CE index data in the EU is shown.
5. Row 430. In what areas can the TOPSIS method be used? Please provide examples of practical application.
6. Row 517. Table No 2. No information on what they mean: [+] and [-].
7. Row 530. Missing units in column titles, for example: kg or %.
8. Row 550. A subscript should be used for the designations j1 and j2.
9. Rows 571 and 574 and 579 and Fig.1. The Ci parameter is written in different ways, there is no uniform marking.
10. Row 579. Fig.1. The colored index under the drawing is difficult to read. I suggest introducing numbering for countries.
11. Rows: 818 to 831. The References uses literature on the multi-criteria TOPSIS method, which is probably the so-called canon. This literature should be supplemented with newer publications.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
thank You for Your time and efforts on reviewing our article.
In this article were made major improvements, according Your recommendations.
I hope it could suit Your requirements.
Thank You for Your time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is relevant and very current especially gives clarity on the fulfillment of some SDGs, however I suggest reviewing the objective of the article in light of the findings or results found, additionally the methodology should justify why variables such as domestic waste, number of patents related to Circular Economy, rate of reuse of raw materials, among others, are used, the conclusions should be reviewed once the overall objective is adjusted.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
It is a relevant study since it compares circular economy practices in the member countries of the European Union, which demonstrates the progress of the European Union towards a low-carbon economy that is competitive, efficient in the use of resources and respectful of the environment. environment, the above serves as a background and examples to follow in public policies for governments that are in this same objective.
2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field?
The analysis of the practices carried out in each member country of the European Union, a total of 28 nations, the indicators used to measure the efficiency of the practices.
3. What specific gap in the field does the work address?
Know the efficiency of the policies implemented in each country to achieve a low-carbon and more environmentally friendly economy.
4. What does it contribute to the topic compared to other publications? published?
The size of the sample since each of the countries of the European Union is analyzed
5. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
It must be indicated why the variables analyzed in each country were chosen in order to determine the impact on the study.
6. Describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
The conclusions must be strengthened in such a way that they allow us to understand which policies have been most effective and relevant.
7. Are the references adequate?
If I consider that the references are adequate.
8. Please include any additional comments about the tables and figures and the quality of the data.
The tables are clear and the figures are of good quality.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
thank You for Your time and efforts on reviewing our article.
In this article were made major improvements, according Your recommendations.
I hope it could suit Your requirements.
Thank You for Your time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors efficiently addressed all the recommendations issued, both in form and substance, making the article clearer and more complete.
