Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is of chaotic nature — sources are not sufficiently analyzed for the review level. In fact, there were an attempt to analyze only 46 sources (Table 1). All the other 72 sources are described with a couple of sentences in the article. For example, lines 366-367 — one word per source. Other comments:

1. It is necessary to correct Abstract — the Methods, Results and Conclusions are not sufficiently described. Bring in line with the requirements of the journal – https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/journal/sustainability/instructions
2. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 have no quality content. The elements are simply listed without a corresponding description in the text. As for Figure 6 — design it as required — add axis labels, values, etc. This figure also requires a description in the text.
3. Lines 82-89 — for greater clarity, create a study algorithm for the article. Now this text looks like part of the Abstract with the description of the sections of the article.
4. Materials and Methods. The study methods are not described, instead the study stages are described (repeatedly, initially in lines 82-89). Describe general and specific methods used in the article. The authors write that "keyword search" was used while scientifically this is content analysis. Next, briefly describe the methods in Abstract.
5. Table 1 raises a lot of questions. Firstly, why is the period of 2013-2020 taken, how is this periodization explained? Secondly, it is not enough just to give a list of authors (some of them are mentioned two times, Prasara, J. and Gheewala, S.H.) – it is necessary to group them according to certain classification criteria, scientific schools, etc. With that, it should be remembered that the authors make a review article — there must be a complex classification structure. Thirdly, it is not enough to indicate annotations to these articles in the ‘Result’ column of Table 1. It is necessary to critically approach the review of sources — advantages, disadvantages, what is specifically important for the author's research, etc. Fourthly, why are only 38.9 % of article sources analyzed in Table 1.
6. The following is not highlighted in the article: author's contribution, purpose, objectives, study hypotheses. The authors themselves indicate that "keyword search" in two databases — Google Scholar and Web of Science — was used as the main method of review. Why were these databases used? Google Scholar analytics also includes research of Web of Science, i.e., information repetition. All this makes the article pseudoscientific, the elementary principles of writing scientific articles are violated. This article is journalistic in form and content, not for a scientific journal.
7. Based on the above comments, it is necessary to completely rewrite the Conclusion section. At the same time, add the necessary elements that are currently missing: research limitations and ways to overcome them; prospects for further research. This will greatly increase interest from readers.

Author Response

Point 1: It is necessary to correct Abstract — the Methods, Results and Conclusions are not sufficiently described. Bring in line with the requirements of the journal –

Response 1: I have modified abstract section according to the comment

Point 2: Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 have no quality content. The elements are simply listed without a corresponding description in the text. As for Figure 6 — design it as required — add axis labels, values, etc. This figure also requires a description in the text.

Response 2: I added description for all of mentioned figures.

Point 3: Lines 82-89 — for greater clarity, create a study algorithm for the article. Now this text looks like part of the Abstract with the description of the sections of the article.

Response 3: I have taken into consideration of the overall improvement

Point 4:  Materials and Methods. The study methods are not described, instead the study stages are described (repeatedly, initially in lines 82-89). Describe general and specific methods used in the article. The authors write that "keyword search" was used while scientifically this is content analysis. Next, briefly describe the methods in Abstract.

Response 4: I have added

Point 5: Table 1 raises a lot of questions. Firstly, why is the period of 2013-2020 taken, how is this periodization explained? Secondly, it is not enough just to give a list of authors (some of them are mentioned two times, Prasara, J. and Gheewala, S.H.) – it is necessary to group them according to certain classification criteria, scientific schools, etc. With that, it should be remembered that the authors make a review article — there must be a complex classification structure. Thirdly, it is not enough to indicate annotations to these articles in the ‘Result’ column of Table 1. It is necessary to critically approach the review of sources — advantages, disadvantages, what is specifically important for the author's research, etc. Fourthly, why are only 38.9 % of article sources analyzed in Table 1.

Response 5

The most of the publication was from these years.

I modified according to the involved stakeholders and methodology table 2 and 3 subsequently. I have added all of the sources excluded review papers and guidelines.

 PrasaraI is not repeted he or she has two publication one is on S-LCA of sugarcane cassava, and rice and another one is about sugar industry:

Prasara-a, J.; Gheewala, S.H. Of Agricultural Products : Experiences on Rice , Sugarcane and Cassava in Thailand; 2019; ISBN 9789811332364.

Prasara-a, J.; Gheewala, S.H. Applying Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Thai Sugar Industry : Challenges from the Fi Eld. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018, 172, 335–346, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.120.

Point6: The following is not highlighted in the article: author's contribution, purpose, objectives, study hypotheses. The authors themselves indicate that "keyword search" in two databases — Google Scholar and Web of Science — was used as the main method of review. Why were these databases used? Google Scholar analytics also includes research of Web of Science, i.e., information repetition. All this makes the article pseudoscientific, the elementary principles of writing scientific articles are violated. This article is journalistic in form and content, not for a scientific journal.

Response 6

The objective of this study is to review existing literatures and figure out the gap in S-LCA by applying a narrative review using publications on ISI Web of Science and Scopus published from 2006 to 2020. This research is able to answer the following research questions:

I have improved. I have added

I have corrected database.

1. Point 7: Based on the above comments, it is necessary to completely rewrite the Conclusion section. At the same time, add the necessary elements that are currently missing: research limitations and ways to overcome them; prospects for further research. This will greatly increase interest from readers.
2. Response 7 I have added and improved it by providing subsection for conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article. Here are my comments:

1. Under the Introduction (first paragraph and Figure 1), the words “environmental”, “social” and “economic” under the pillars of sustainability are adjectives and should be accompanied with nouns. It is better to use the words “environmental protection”, “social equity”, and “economic viability”.
2. The English used is at an average level. There were many errors throughout the paper. My advice to the authors is to send this article for proofreading so that the grammar, structure and syntax within the paper are more polished and consistent. Some suggestions include Editage, Enago or American Journal Experts.
3. Figure 3 shows an evolution of LCC application, but it is rather bland. Perhaps the authors could consider producing a more eye-catching infographic showing a more presentable chronological process of this evolution.
4. There were 5 research questions proposed at the beginning of the paper. It is important to address each research question explicitly throughout the paper or in some of the sections. For instance, if your review in a certain section is addressing RQ1 or RQ2, it should be categorised and stated in that particular section or even sub-sectionised. This will improve the readability of your paper.
5. It is important to sub-sectionise your Conclusion, highlighting the achievement of aim, main findings or observations, novelty of study, limitations of study and directions for future research. I believe some aspects in the above-stated list have already been addressed, but they are not systematically categorised and need to be slightly more detailed.

Thank you very much.

Author Response

Point 1: Under the Introduction (first paragraph and Figure 1), the words “environmental”, “social” and “economic” under the pillars of sustainability are adjectives and should be accompanied with nouns. It is better to use the words “environmental protection”, “social equity”, and “economic viability”.

Response 1: I improved in figure and text according to the comment.

Point 2: The English used is at an average level. There were many errors throughout the paper. My advice to the authors is to send this article for proofreading so that the grammar, structure and syntax within the paper are more polished and consistent. Some suggestions include Editage, Enago or American Journal Experts.

Response 2: I sent to proofreader.

Point 3: Figure 3 shows an evolution of LCC application, but it is rather bland. Perhaps the authors could consider producing a more eye-catching infographic showing a more presentable chronological process of this evolution.

Response 3: I modified the picture

Point 4: There were 5 research questions proposed at the beginning of the paper. It is important to address each research question explicitly throughout the paper or in some of the sections. For instance, if your review in a certain section is addressing RQ1 or RQ2, it should be categorised and stated in that particular section or even sub-sectionised. This will improve the readability of your paper.

Response 4:  It has been categorized as following subsection:

2. The elements of sustainability in life cycle management

4.1The sectors of S-LCA Studies:

4.2 Countries of S-LCA studies:

5.1. Social life cycle studies of products

5.3 Limitation of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA):

Point 5: It is important to sub-sectionise your Conclusion, highlighting the achievement of aim, main findings or observations, novelty of study, limitations of study and directions for future research. I believe some aspects in the above-stated list have already been addressed, but they are not systematically categorised and need to be slightly more detailed.

Response 5:

I have improved by providing a subsection for it including main findings, limitations, and further research requirements.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a great job of correcting the article, all my comments and recommendations have been taken into account. I think that the current version of the article can be published in the journal.