Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 14, 2020
Decision Letter - Prakash Kumar Sarangi, Editor

PONE-D-20-10526

Plastics and Sustainable Purchase Decisions in a Circular Economy: The Case of the Holland Food Industry

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pedro,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prakash Kumar Sarangi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year),  b) a description of how participants were recruited, and c) descriptions of the social media platforms where participants were recruited and other methods for recruiting participants. Please also discuss whether the questionnaire was anonymized when you received the data.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

'No'

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

'No'

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

6. Please include a copy of Table 7 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

7. We note you have included tables to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 9. 10 and 11 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Tables.

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Section 1 and 2 are very lengthy. I would suggest to merge these sections under a single heading of Introduction and limit it to two to three pages. Latest references should be incorporated. . Plastic production data of 2015 is mentioned. It is suggested to provide data of 2019.

Reviewer #2: 1. There are two “The” in the title of the manuscript as highlighted above, which seems to be inappropriate. Authors are advised to keep only one.

2. Initial lines of the abstract are well written but there are no statements of findings. The results of work should be written in the abstract to make it more prominent.

3. All the keywords are in upper case. The authors are advised to write them in lower case.

4. The list of abbreviations or symbols used should be placed either at beginning or at the end of manuscript.

5. Legend of figure-1 should contain “that”. It should be like “Factors influencing sustainable purchase decisions”

6. The sections like “practical implications” and Limitations and future prospective” presented in page-18 are not well organized. The authors are advised to reorganize and present the sections before the conclusion.

7. Most of the references are found to be very old. Authors should refer and cite some latest papers related to their research.

Minor revisions given above must be incorporated in the manuscript for consideration.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Latika Bhatia, Atal Bihari Vajpayee University, Bilaspur, India

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx
Revision 1

COMMENTS TO REVIEWERS

Reviewer 1.

1. Section 1 and 2 are very lengthy. I would suggest to merge these sections under a single heading of Introduction and limit it to two to three pages.

In order that the text not to be so extensive, the introductory chapter was modified, removing content, reducing it to a page and a half. The second and third sections have been merged, also cutting their length.

2. Latest references should be incorporated.

The references of the work have been updated, including the following:

• Blomsma, F. and G. Brennan (2017). The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), pp. 603-614.

• Hadladakis J.N. and F. Iacovidou (2018). Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Science of the Total Environment 630 (2018) 1394–1400.

• Mugge, R. (2018), Product Design and Consumer Behavior in a Circular Economy, Sustainabilty, 2018, 10 (10, pp. 1-4.

• Nuñez-Cacho, P. Górecki, J. Molina-Moreno, V and F.A. Corpas-Iglesias (2018), What Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2340.

• Prieto-Sandoval, C. Jaca and M. Ormazabal (2018), Towards a consensus on the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179. 605-615.

3. Plastic production data of 2015 is mentioned. It is suggested to provide data of 2019.

The data on world plastic production for 2015 has been updated to 2018.

REVIEWER 2

1. There are two “The” in the title of the manuscript as highlighted above, which seems to be inappropriate. Authors are advised to keep only one.

The title has been revised with a translator, including now just one “the”. So, the final title is “Plastics and Sustainable Purchase Decisions in a Circular Economy: The Case of Dutch Food Industry”

2. Initial lines of the abstract are well written but there are no statements of findings. The results of work should be written in the abstract to make it more prominent.

Several new lines have been added to the abstract explaining the results obtained.

3. All the keywords are in upper case. The authors are advised to write them in lower case.

The keywords has been modified according the suggestion of the reviewer.

4. The list of abbreviations or symbols used should be placed either at beginning or at the end of manuscript.

The list of abbreviations has been added at the end of the paper.

5. Legend of figure-1 should contain “that”. It should be like “Factors influencing sustainable purchase decisions”

Legend of figure 1 has been modified to “Figure 1: Factors influencing sustainable purchase decisions”

6. The sections like “practical implications” and Limitations and future prospective” presented in page-18 are not well organized. The authors are advised to reorganize and present the sections before the conclusion.

The section on practical implications and limitations has been reorganized, placing them before the conclusion.

7. Most of the references are found to be very old. Authors should refer and cite some latest papers related to their research. Minor revisions given above must be incorporated in the manuscript for consideration.

We´ve added new references of the last years:

• Blomsma, F. and G. Brennan (2017). The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around prolonging resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), pp. 603-614.

• Hadladakis J.N. and F. Iacovidou (2018). Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Science of the Total Environment 630 (2018) 1394–1400.

• Mugge, R. (2018), Product Design and Consumer Behavior in a Circular Economy, Sustainabilty, 2018, 10 (10, pp. 1-4.

• Nuñez-Cacho, P. Górecki, J. Molina-Moreno, V and F.A. Corpas-Iglesias (2018), What Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2340.

• Prieto-Sandoval, C. Jaca and M. Ormazabal (2018), Towards a consensus on the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179. 605-615.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response to reviewer 1407.docx
Decision Letter - Prakash Kumar Sarangi, Editor

Plastics and Sustainable Purchase Decisions in a Circular Economy: The Case of Dutch Food Industry

PONE-D-20-10526R1

Dear Dr. Pedro,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Prakash Kumar Sarangi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accepted

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Prakash Kumar Sarangi, Editor

PONE-D-20-10526R1

Plastics and Sustainable Purchase Decisions in a Circular Economy: The Case of Dutch Food Industry

Dear Dr. Núñez-Cacho:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Prakash Kumar Sarangi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .