Structured PREreview of Solid Waste Valorization: Concepts, Principles, Valorization Techniques, and Integrated Waste Management

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Partly

The introduction is very informative concerning the scope of the study. We would have loved to see a research objective or aim of the study. Also, we expected to see something new concerning waste valorization, as many authors have reviewed this concept.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Neither appropriate nor inappropriate

The preprint lacks a methodological section. It's stated (author's contributions) but not explained. We advise the authors to add this section to clearly explain how the literature was identified and selected. Also, we would like to know if it's a narrative or critical...

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The statement "Atificial Intelligence (AI) and AI tools in the waste management system can be particularly relevant for improving waste valorization and better resource utilization" is not supported. We encourage the authors to support this statement. Also, we would have loved to see the limitations of the study.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

I don’t know

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

Some efforts are needed to discuss findings in relation to others and interpretations and explain why certain technologies perform differently. This is to say that the preprint is more descriptive rather than interpretative.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Not likely

The authors declare, "A version of the material presented in this manuscript is currently under consideration for publication as a book chapter. "Then this is not the right place (preprint server). We believe that for a preprint to contribute to the advancement of science, it should provide new empirical findings, a reproducible approach, and address a research gap.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

There is a need to engage with someone in the domain of environmental engineering and waste management terminology. Also, there are some grammatical errors to be reviewed.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

We believe that the target audience plays a crucial role in shaping the content. For instance, if the audience consists of researchers focused on waste management, it is essential to include elements such as methodology, research gaps, and quantitative comparisons.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.