PSTR-D-24-00025

Social Innovations for a Circular Built Environment: A Heuristic Framework Based on a Review

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Bullinger,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation'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 within 60 days Nov 19 2024 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 SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan Uribe Toril

Academic Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

1. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "The data used in this submission can be accessed using the methods disclosed in the article (i.e.: Web of Science).

No data except that disclosed has been used."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

2. Please ensure that you provide a single, cohesive .tex source file for your LaTeX revision. You may upload this file as the item type 'LaTeX Source File.' As stated in the PLOS template, your references should be included in your .tex file (not submitted separately as .bib or .bbl). Please also ensure that you are making any formatting changes to both your .tex file and the PDF of your manuscript. If you have any questions, please contact Latex@plos.org. You can find our LaTeX guidelines here: LINK

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/latex

3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

4. Please upload a copy of Figure 2 which you refer to in your text on page 24. Or, if the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

5. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

First of all, I am sorry for the delay in responding. As you know, scientific journals have a peer review process, we have to find specialists in the field of the paper and wait for them to agree to review it.

Sometimes, we find that the reviewers accept the review and meet the deadline without doing it, which slows down the process even more.

Also, although it is usual to have three reviewers, I have limited this case to two reviewers so as not to delay the evaluation any further.

The reviewers have decided to reject -major revision. In my opinion, your article should be published as long as you follow the instructions of reviewer 2, so I have decided to make it a major revision.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?<br/><br/>PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 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<br/><br/>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: While the writing is more philosophical side, it tends to be very broad and surface view. The depth of the research is not visible. It is well known at any built environment will cater for social needs with the combination of various technical and progressive innovation. It is unclear what makes social innovation different that the non-technical innovation. The connection between SI and the activity within BE as shown in Table 2 is also technologically based and seems stretching to build some connections and still very broad.

Reviewer #2: The submitted article, “Social Innovations for a Circular Built Environment: A Heuristic Framework Based on a Review,” covers an important topic in the circular economy. However, the authors should consider the following comments to improve the overall quality of the article:

• Introduction: The introduction is very brief and lacks sufficient scholarly justification for conducting the research. It would be beneficial to provide a brief overview of the scholarly contributions to the circular economy and any evidence to support the claim that social factors have not been widely considered in the current body of knowledge. Additionally, key research terminology, such as "social innovation," needs theoretical framing in the introductory section, including why it matters and its relevance to the circular economy.

• Methodology: The study utilizes the Web of Science database, which is appropriate. However, SCOPUS is another relevant database that the authors should consider. Is there a particular reason the SCOPUS database was excluded? If not, the authors should consider using the search strings in SCOPUS to cross-check for any relevant articles that may not have appeared in the list. The PRISMA figure (Figure 1, both the figure number and title are missing) does not indicate the number of articles considered from the practice review and snowballing.

• Line 89-90: The authors mention that a list of 34 scientific articles was qualitatively analyzed; however, the number of selected articles was 20. Please clearly explain how many articles were excluded and the final number analyzed for the qualitative analysis.

• Section 3: The section on motivation and background should be moved before the Methodology section to maintain consistency and provide a solid foundation and rationale for the study. Additionally, the discussion on the circular built environment should come first, followed by linking social innovation to the circular economy. Clearly define the scope of your study (e.g., exploring social innovation through the lens of slowing, narrowing, and closing loops).

• Table 2: Most of the innovations presented in Table 2 relate to technological innovation, making it difficult to see the significant differences and contributions to social innovation. Therefore, the discussion on social innovation should clearly articulate what social innovation means and how it differs from technological innovations, as this distinction is not clear at the moment. Improve Table 2 by incorporating social transformations of all the labels/innovations listed, as some columns/boxes are missing, or the descriptions are unclear. For example, 3D printing creates new jobs and skills for society/job seekers, offering flexibility and affordability in housing. Similarly, a building materials exchange platform may support an informal market and economy for society.

• Sections 4 and 5: These sections should be part of the Results. If they are not, please clarify whether these sections are derived from the identified articles.

• Figures: The titles for Figure 2 and the figure number are missing. Additionally, the legend for the half-white and green symbol is missing.

• Significance of Findings: The significance of the findings has not been discussed.

--------------------

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Associate Professor Atiq Zaman, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University, Australia

--------------------

[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.

Social Innovations for a Circular Built Environment: A Heuristic Framework Based on a Review

PSTR-D-24-00025R1

Dear Ms Bullinger,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Social Innovations for a Circular Built Environment: A Heuristic Framework Based on a Review' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 SustainTransform@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Best regards,

Juan Uribe Toril

Academic Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks for your replay. I think the new version include all the requirements.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):