Correction: The Circular Economy as an Environmental Mitigation Strategy: Systematic and Bibliometric Analysis of Global Trends and Cross-Sectoral Approaches (Environments, (2026), 13, 1, (48), 10.3390/environments13010048)

Garcilazo-Lopez A.; Lizarzaburu-Aguinaga D.A.; Ramos Farroñán E.V.; Jurado C.D.V.; Cabrera Carranza C.F.; Jave Nakayo J.L. · Environments - MDPI (2026) · DOI: 10.3390/environments13030152

Resumen

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram did not fully comply with the official PRISMA 2020 Statement guidelines for reporting the systematic selection process. Specifically, the published Figure 1 erroneously reported 62 articles as the final included corpus. This number was incorrect and resulted from a version control error during the original manuscript preparation: an earlier iteration of the PRISMA diagram, reflecting a preliminary screening stage before the final eligibility assessment, was inadvertently included in the submitted manuscript. The correct number of articles included in the systematic review has always been 51, as consistently reported throughout the manuscript text, including: the Abstract (“51 peer-reviewed articles published between 2018 and 2024”), Section 2.2/Table 1 (final column explicitly reports 51 articles after cross-database deduplication), Section 2.3 (“This exhaustive search yielded a final corpus of 51 articles”), Section 3/Results (“bibliometric and systematic content analysis of 51 peer-reviewed articles”), Table 5 (lists exactly 51 studies), and Section 5/Conclusions (“This systematic, bibliometric review of 51 peer-reviewed articles”). The number 62 appeared exclusively in the PRISMA flow diagram figure and was never reflected in any textual, tabular, or analytical element of the article. Therefore, the change from 62 to 51 in the corrected Figure 1 is not a reduction of the corpus, but rather the correction of an erroneous figure to match the actual dataset that was analyzed and reported throughout the manuscript. The corrected Figure 1 appears below. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The figure contained overlapping parts due to a formatting/image-rendering error that affected the visual presentation. Additionally, Figure 5 presents a two-dimensional clustering scatter plot derived from a hierarchical clustering analysis of title similarity (Section 3.4). Not all articles in the corpus appear in this visualization because the clustering algorithm applies a minimum similarity threshold (cosine similarity ≥ 0.44, as stated in Section 3.4) to determine cluster membership. Articles with highly distinctive titles that do not reach this threshold are not assigned to any cluster and are, therefore, excluded from the scatter plot. In the published version, the figure displayed 59 data points because it was linked to the erroneous corpus count of 62 (59 of 62 articles met the similarity threshold; 3 were excluded). In the corrected version, the figure displays 48 data points because the correct corpus is 51 articles (48 of 51 meet the similarity threshold; 3 are excluded). The proportion of excluded articles is consistent in both versions (approximately 5–6% of the corpus), confirming that the clustering methodology was applied identically. The corrected Figure 5 appears below. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. The figure had low image resolution. Additionally, one emotion label was refined for greater terminological precision: the published version used the label “blame”, while the corrected version uses “guilt” to more accurately represent the NLP lexicon output used in the sentiment analysis (Section 3.5). Both terms belong to the same emotional category within established sentiment analysis frameworks (negative valence, attribution-oriented emotion). The underlying data values, frequency counts, proportional distributions, and all analytical conclusions remain identical. The corrected Figure 6 appears below. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 5 as published. The references were formatted in APA 7th edition style instead of IEEE style, which is the required citation format for this journal. Additionally, the published Table 5, which was linked to the erroneous PRISMA count of 62 articles, contained entries that did not correspond to the actual analyzed corpus. The corrected Table 5 lists the 51 studies that constitute the analyzed corpus, formatted in IEEE style consistent with the journal requirements, with standardized columns (Ref., Authors, Year, Title, Journal/Source, Country, Main Theme) to provide a comprehensive characterization of each included study, consistent with PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines. The scientific conclusions are unaffected, as all analyses reported in the manuscript were always based on these 51 studies. The additional last paragraph in Section 3.4 and corrected Table 5 appears below. Table 5 presents the complete characteristics of the 51 studies included in this systematic review, detailing authorship, publication year, country, journal source, and main research theme. Characteristics of the 51 studies included in the systematic review. Note. This table was prepared based on information from the systematic review article. Studies were selected following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, with searches in Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, and Wiley Online Library. 75.8% of publications correspond to Q1 journals according to Scimago Journal Rank. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; Universidad César Vallejo