Financial Analysis of International Energy Trade: A Strategic Outlook for EU-15
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The current version is a straightforward application of the interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approaches. Pages 6-8 introduce the interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approaches. Then the computed numbers are reported without energy-economic theoretical support and formally linkage to energy policy variables.
2. The so-called ‘energy performance’ in this paper is relative rankings of countries while there is no clear measure on energy efficiency or productivity at all.
3. All of the numerical findings are based on the correlation of variables. It is not clear which variables are the causes or results of the energy performance.
4. There is no research hypothesis constructed from the energy economic theory at all. The current version is a straightforward demonstration for applying the interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approaches.
5. Even though this paper uses the term ‘significance’, this term differs from the statistical significance. The meaning of significance should be better defined and explained in this paper. As this paper cites, the significance level is a measure of distances in TOPSIS (p. 8). Methodological papers such as Tzeng et al. (2007) should be cited and their suggested research steps should be briefly introduced and interpreted.
6. Table 8 reports the weights obtained from the type-2 fuzzy approach. Table 10 reports the weights for each country. Using these weights, Table 11-15 then report the rankings. However, these rankings are just numerical results without clear causes in disaggregate energy efficiencies, etc. It is also not clear what kinds of environmental, policy, and institutional factors make such results.
7. Since Table 10 contains weights for each country, it should be feasible to explain why a country is ranked higher or lower due to some criteria. If a country is ranked lower, then it should perform not well with respect to some criteria.
8. In the conclusion, it says, “There is a positive correlation between GDP amount and the performance of international transport and energy trade. It means that the international transport and energy capacity have a positive influence on the development of the countries.” However, correlation cannot be applied to make causation inference. The statement that two variables x and y are correlated does not imply that there is a cause-and-effect relation between them. Moreover, it is still not clear how a country can increase its energy performance by expanding its international transport and energy capacity. If the energy efficiency is not improved, the expansions in international transport and energy capacity may cause more energy inefficiency and environmental damages?
9. Since there is no policy and institutional variable included in the model, it is also not clear how a country can actually enhance its international transport and energy capacity. These variables may be also results of their policy and institutional variables but not the causes of their energy performance.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment: 1.The current version is a straightforward application of the interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approaches. Pages 6-8 introduce the interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approaches. Then the computed numbers are reported without energy-economic theoretical support and formally linkage to energy policy variables.
Author Answer: The following paragraph is added at the beginning of the “4.1. Analysis Design”. In this paragraph, the theoratical information about the relationship between energy and economic growth is shared.
With respect to the relationship between energy and economic growth, there are different views in the literature. According to the neoclassical economists, energy does not have a significant influence on the economic growth. The main reason behind this issue is that energy has a very low ratio in the gross domestic product. On the other side, for some energy economists, energy is accepted as an important input for the production. In other words, it can be used in the production of the final goods. Therefore, for these researchers, energy is a very crucial issue for the economic development.
Reviewer Comment: 2.The so-called ‘energy performance’ in this paper is relative rankings of countries while there is no clear measure on energy efficiency or productivity at all.
Author Answer: In this analysis, there is no direct measuring of energy efficiency or productivity. However, we evaluate the performance of EU15 countries according to the effective usage of 6 items of international transport and energy trade. Because of this situation, we used the expression of “energy performance”. Nonetheless, the terms “energy efficiency” and “energy productivity” are not preferred.
Reviewer Comment: 3.All of the numerical findings are based on the correlation of variables. It is not clear which variables are the causes or results of the energy performance.
Author Answer: After Table 8, the paragraph is revised. In this paragraph, the factors which affect the performance are explained. This new paragraph is stated below.
Table 8 shows that road (C4) is the most important item in the international transport and energy trade while electricity (C6) has the weakest importance relatively among the criterion set. Additionally, pipeline (C5) is the most influencing factor as air (C2) is the most influenced factor in the criteria. It is determined that road and see have the highest significance for international transport and energy trade. However, pipeline and electricity, which explain the energy trade, take place on the last ranks. This situation gives information that energy trade factors have lower importance by comparing with others.
Reviewer Comment: 4.There is no research hypothesis constructed from the energy economic theory at all. The current version is a straightforward demonstration for applying the interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS approaches.
Author Answer: At the beginning of the “4.1. Analysis Design”, the following paragraph is added. Within this framework, the theoratical information about the relationship between energy and economic growth is shared.
With respect to the relationship between energy and economic growth, there are different views in the literature. According to the neoclassical economists, energy does not have a significant influence on the economic growth. The main reason behind this issue is that energy has a very low ratio in the gross domestic product. On the other side, for some energy economists, energy is accepted as an important input for the production. In other words, it can be used in the production of the final goods. Therefore, for these researchers, energy is a very crucial issue for the economic development.
Reviewer Comment: 5.Even though this paper uses the term ‘significance’, this term differs from the statistical significance. The meaning of significance should be better defined and explained in this paper. As this paper cites, the significance level is a measure of distances in TOPSIS (p. 8). Methodological papers such as Tzeng et al. (2007) should be cited and their suggested research steps should be briefly introduced and interpreted.
Author Answer: The term significance is changed where it does not have a meaning of statistical significance. Additionally, Tzeng et al. (2007) is also cited in the study.
Reviewer Comment: 6.Table 8 reports the weights obtained from the type-2 fuzzy approach. Table 10 reports the weights for each country. Using these weights, Table 11-15 then report the rankings. However, these rankings are just numerical results without clear causes in disaggregate energy efficiencies, etc. It is also not clear what kinds of environmental, policy, and institutional factors make such results.
Author Answer: After Table 8, the paragraph is revised. In this paragraph, the factors which affect the performance are explained. This new paragraph is stated below.
Table 8 shows that road (C4) is the most important item in the international transport and energy trade while electricity (C6) has the weakest importance relatively among the criterion set. Additionally, pipeline (C5) is the most influencing factor as air (C2) is the most influenced factor in the criteria. It is determined that road and see have the highest significance for international transport and energy trade. However, pipeline and electricity, which explain the energy trade, take place on the last ranks. This situation gives information that energy trade factors have lower importance by comparing with others.
Reviewer Comment: 7. Since Table 10 contains weights for each country, it should be feasible to explain why a country is ranked higher or lower due to some criteria. If a country is ranked lower, then it should perform not well with respect to some criteria.
Author Answer: We explain which crieria are lower/higher for the countries that are ranked lower/higher. New sentences are added in both analysis results and conclusion sections. They are given below.
This situation gives information that France and Germany are the countries which use road and see transport more effectively in comparison with other countries. Similarly, it means that the countries which are on the last ranks, are not so successful to use road and see transport.
It is understood that use road and see transport are used more effectively by France and Germany by comparing with other countries.
Reviewer Comment: 8.In the conclusion, it says, “There is a positive correlation between GDP amount and the performance of international transport and energy trade. It means that the international transport and energy capacity have a positive influence on the development of the countries.” However, correlation cannot be applied to make causation inference. The statement that two variables x and y are correlated does not imply that there is a cause-and-effect relation between them. Moreover, it is still not clear how a country can increase its energy performance by expanding its international transport and energy capacity. If the energy efficiency is not improved, the expansions in international transport and energy capacity may cause more energy inefficiency and environmental damages?
Author Answer: This expression is removed from the study.
Reviewer Comment: 9.Since there is no policy and institutional variable included in the model, it is also not clear how a country can actually enhance its international transport and energy capacity. These variables may be also results of their policy and institutional variables but not the causes of their energy performance.
Author Answer: In this analysis, there is no direct measuring of energy efficiency or productivity. However, we evaluate the performance of EU15 countries according to the effective usage of 6 items of international transport and energy trade. Because of this situation, we used the expression of “energy performance”. Nonetheless, the terms “energy efficiency” and “energy productivity” are not preferred.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The relevance of the topic, the results' originality, the sample's choice, the appropiatness of the methodology should be clearly presented and discussed in the Introduction.
Section 2 should be completely re-written in a critical way. A table could help the reader. Some contributions are missed: i.e., Magazzino, C., (2016), Is per capita energy use stationary? Panel data evidence for the EMU countries, Energy, Exploration & Exploitation, 34, 3, 440-448; Magazzino, C., (2017), Is per capita energy use stationary? Time series evidence for the EMU countries, Energy, Exploration & Exploitation, 35, 1, 24-32.
Description of the data is completely missed.
Policy implications and comparisons with previous studies are poor.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment: The relevance of the topic, the results' originality, the sample's choice, the appropiatness of the methodology should be clearly presented and discussed in the Introduction.
Author Answer: These details are clearly presented in the introduction part.
Reviewer Comment: Section 2 should be completely re-written in a critical way. A table could help the reader. Some contributions are missed: i.e., Magazzino, C., (2016), Is per capita energy use stationary? Panel data evidence for the EMU countries, Energy, Exploration & Exploitation, 34, 3, 440-448; Magazzino, C., (2017), Is per capita energy use stationary? Time series evidence for the EMU countries, Energy, Exploration & Exploitation, 35, 1, 24-32.
Author Answer: This part is entirely rewritten. A literature review summary table is added. These two studies are added in this part.
Reviewer Comment: Description of the data is completely missed.
Author Answer: This data is described on the appendix.
Reviewer Comment: Policy implications and comparisons with previous studies are poor.
Author Answer: A comparison is made with previous studies in the literature.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have replied all questions raised by this reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
OK
