Peer Review Form

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations uses peer review to support the scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, and integrity of manuscripts considered for publication. Reviewers are requested to evaluate submissions objectively, constructively, confidentially, and within their area of expertise.

Reviewer comments should provide sufficient academic reasoning to assist the editor in reaching an informed decision and to help authors improve the manuscript where revision is appropriate. Reviewers should focus on the scholarly content of the submission and avoid personal, discriminatory, or unsupported statements.

Reviewer Information

Manuscript Title: ___________________________________________

Manuscript ID: _____________________________________________

Article Type: _______________________________________________

Reviewer Name: _____________________________________________

Reviewer Affiliation: ________________________________________

Review Date: ________________________________________________

Reviewer identity and personal information are treated as confidential and are not disclosed to authors except where disclosure is permitted under the journal's published peer-review policy or required by applicable procedures.

1. Reviewer Declaration

Before beginning the review, please confirm the following:

  • I have sufficient subject or methodological expertise to evaluate this manuscript.

  • I have no conflict of interest that would compromise my impartiality.

  • I will maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

  • I will not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.

  • I will provide an objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessment.

  • I will notify the editor if I identify a potential ethical, integrity, authorship, plagiarism, data, or publication concern.

If a relevant conflict of interest exists, please describe it below and contact the editorial office before completing the review.

Conflict of Interest, if any:

2. Overall Scholarly Evaluation

Please evaluate the manuscript using the following scale:

5 = Excellent
4 = Very Good
3 = Satisfactory
2 = Needs Major Improvement
1 = Unsatisfactory
N/A = Not Applicable

Evaluation Criterion 5 4 3 2 1 N/A
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Originality of the manuscript ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Significance of the research problem ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Clarity of research objectives or questions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of literature engagement ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Appropriateness of methodology ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of data analysis or argumentation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Reliability of results or conclusions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of discussion and interpretation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Contribution to circular economy scholarship ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Ethical and research-integrity compliance ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Quality of academic writing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Accuracy and relevance of references ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Overall suitability for publication ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

3. Title and Abstract

Please assess whether the title accurately represents the manuscript and whether the abstract provides a clear, balanced, and accurate summary of the research.

Consider whether the abstract adequately communicates the research problem, purpose, methodology, principal findings, and conclusion where applicable.

Reviewer Comments:

4. Introduction and Research Context

Please evaluate whether the introduction establishes an appropriate scholarly context and explains the relevance and significance of the research problem.

The manuscript should clearly identify the issue being investigated and explain its relationship to existing knowledge in circular economy, sustainability, resource efficiency, industrial transformation, business models, policy, innovation, or other relevant areas.

Reviewer Comments:

5. Literature Review and Research Gap

Please assess whether the manuscript engages appropriately with relevant scholarly literature and accurately represents previous research.

Consider whether the authors identify a meaningful research gap, unresolved issue, theoretical limitation, methodological problem, or practical challenge that justifies the study.

The review should not consist merely of descriptive summaries but should demonstrate critical engagement with relevant scholarship.

Reviewer Comments:

6. Research Objectives, Questions, or Hypotheses

Please evaluate whether the research objectives, research questions, or hypotheses are clearly stated and logically connected to the problem addressed by the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments:

7. Methodology

Please assess whether the research design and methodology are appropriate for the stated objectives.

Where applicable, consider the adequacy and transparency of:

  • research design;

  • sampling procedures;

  • study population or dataset;

  • data sources;

  • data collection procedures;

  • inclusion and exclusion criteria;

  • analytical methods;

  • statistical procedures;

  • computational techniques;

  • experimental procedures;

  • validation methods;

  • reliability measures; and

  • methodological limitations.

The methodology should contain sufficient detail to permit scholarly evaluation and, where reasonably possible, reproducibility.

Reviewer Comments:

8. Results and Findings

Please evaluate whether the results are presented accurately, logically, and consistently with the methodology.

Consider whether:

  • reported findings are supported by the underlying analysis;

  • tables and graphs are clear and relevant;

  • statistical or analytical results are appropriately reported;

  • results are not selectively presented;

  • findings are distinguished from interpretation; and

  • conclusions do not extend beyond the available evidence.

Reviewer Comments:

9. Discussion

Please assess whether the discussion provides a meaningful interpretation of the findings rather than simply repeating the results.

The discussion should, where appropriate:

  • relate findings to previous studies;

  • explain agreements or differences with existing research;

  • identify theoretical or practical implications;

  • consider alternative interpretations;

  • acknowledge relevant limitations; and

  • avoid unsupported generalization.

Reviewer Comments:

10. Contribution to Circular Economy Research

Please evaluate whether the manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to the field.

Relevant contributions may include advances in:

  • circular economy theory;

  • circular business models;

  • resource efficiency;

  • waste prevention and recovery;

  • industrial symbiosis;

  • sustainable production;

  • sustainable consumption;

  • circular supply chains;

  • material reuse and recycling;

  • product life extension;

  • policy and governance;

  • environmental innovation;

  • circular design;

  • digital technologies supporting circularity;

  • socioeconomic dimensions of circular transition; or

  • related interdisciplinary research.

Reviewer Comments:

11. Ethical and Research Integrity Considerations

Please indicate whether the manuscript raises any concerns relating to research ethics or publication integrity.

Potential concerns may include:

  • plagiarism or inappropriate textual reuse;

  • fabrication or falsification;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • questionable data integrity;

  • inadequate ethics approval;

  • inadequate informed consent;

  • inappropriate use of confidential information;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed use of artificial intelligence tools; or

  • other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Are there any ethical or integrity concerns?

  • No

  • Yes

  • Uncertain — editorial assessment recommended

If yes or uncertain, please provide confidential details to the editor:

12. Research Data and Transparency

Where applicable, please evaluate whether the manuscript provides sufficient information regarding the data supporting the research.

Consider whether:

  • data sources are clearly identified;

  • collection and processing procedures are adequately described;

  • restrictions on access are explained;

  • a Data Availability Statement is appropriate;

  • publicly available datasets are properly cited; and

  • data-related claims are consistent with the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments:

13. Tables, Graphs, and Other Research Materials

Please assess whether tables, graphs, images, appendices, and supplementary materials are necessary, clearly presented, and accurately interpreted.

Consider whether visual materials:

  • are appropriately numbered and titled;

  • provide information relevant to the analysis;

  • are legible and understandable;

  • avoid unnecessary duplication of the text;

  • include appropriate units, labels, legends, or explanatory notes; and

  • acknowledge external sources where required.

Reviewer Comments:

14. References

Please evaluate whether the references are relevant, sufficiently representative of the field, and accurately connected to claims made in the manuscript.

Reviewers should not recommend citations primarily to increase citations to themselves, their institution, a particular journal, or another publication.

Additional references should be recommended only when they are genuinely relevant to the scholarly quality or accuracy of the manuscript.

Reviewer Comments:

15. Academic Writing and Presentation

Please assess whether the manuscript is written in clear, coherent, professional academic English.

Consider:

  • organization and logical flow;

  • clarity of argument;

  • consistency of terminology;

  • readability;

  • grammar and language quality;

  • unnecessary repetition;

  • excessive promotional claims; and

  • appropriate use of technical terminology.

Reviewer Comments:

16. Major Strengths of the Manuscript

Please identify the principal scholarly strengths of the submission.

17. Major Issues Requiring Attention

Please identify the most important issues that should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

18. Minor Comments and Suggested Improvements

Please provide any additional comments concerning clarity, terminology, presentation, references, tables, formatting, or other matters.

19. Comments to the Authors

Please provide constructive comments that may be shared with the authors.

Comments should explain the academic basis for requested changes and should avoid revealing the reviewer's identity.

20. Confidential Comments to the Editor

This section is intended only for the editorial team and will not ordinarily be shared with the authors.

Please use this section for confidential concerns relating to originality, ethics, research integrity, competing interests, publication suitability, or other matters requiring editorial attention.

21. Final Recommendation

Please select one recommendation:

  • Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision — The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication after limited corrections or clarification.

  • Major Revision — Substantial methodological, analytical, conceptual, or presentation issues must be addressed before further consideration.

  • Reject — The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision or is unsuitable for the journal.

Basis for Recommendation

Please provide a concise explanation supporting your recommendation:

Reviewer Confirmation

By submitting this review, I confirm that I have evaluated the manuscript independently and in accordance with principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and responsible peer review.

Reviewer Signature/Confirmation: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________

Editorial Note

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the journal's authorized editorial leadership after consideration of the manuscript, reviewer reports, applicable ethical requirements, and the overall scholarly merits of the submission.