Urban Hydrogen Production Model Using Environmental Infrastructures to Achieve the Net Zero Goal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, this paper cannot be classified as a scientific paper.
The overall presentation of the work has its drawbacks, the most important of which is that the methods are not described at all (only some equations given in Chapter Results). The Paper provides only some statistical data and descriptions of the city's infrastructure and after that immediately jumps to results (not clear how they were obtained). Because of that everything is very unclear.
Therefore, the paper should be reorganized with the missing parts (methods and discussion) appropriately included.
Author Response
We deeply appreciate that you reviewed the paper. Reviewed the paper again, we agreed that the explanation of the methodology was very insufficient. We tried the following to reflect the contents you said as much as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
Added paragraphs regarding the bifurcation of various sections in the introduction. add some content(explain rationale for limited hydrogen production resources) (Line 37~47, 78~97)
Is the research design appropriate? & Are the methods adequately described?
2.1. Added a subchapter on methodology (Line 100~126)
3.1. Additional explanation on how to calculate energy production potential (evidence data and calculation method) (Line 266~274)
Are the results clearly presented? & Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Added implications and policy suggestions to the conclusion section (Line 440~461, 476~489)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much again for your review.
Sincerely,
Hyodong Moon
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is fit to contribute to the concerned field of study. However, the authors are suggested to address the following changes before final acceptance.
1. The introduction section is framed well. However, a paragraph regarding the bifurcation of various sections should be added at the end of the introduction part.
- In the material and method section, Authors should consider landfill-produced hydrogen separately. Also, mention the extraction process and total contribution.
- The authors are suggested to provide supporting literature regarding the selection of these two environmental structures for hydrogen production.
- The results found are relevant and discussed well but are not supported with significant and latest literature. The authors are requested to support the findings with the latest research articles as well.
- The conclusions section is very brief and must include clearly stated practical and managerial implications for the researchers, policymakers, government organizations and for the society on the whole, along with the limitations of the study.
- The article needs a “proof-read” as there are quite a few grammatical errors.
Author Response
We deeply appreciate that you reviewed the paper. We felt that the methodology, background knowledge, and conclusions of the paper were very insufficient you said. We tried the following to reflect the contents you said as much as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The introduction section is framed well. However, a paragraph regarding the bifurcation of various sections should be added at the end of the introduction part.
Added paragraphs regarding the bifurcation of various sections in the introduction. (Line 78~97)
2. In the material and method section, Authors should consider landfill-produced hydrogen separately. Also, mention the extraction process and total contribution. & 3. The authors are suggested to provide supporting literature regarding the selection of these two environmental structures for hydrogen production.
add some content(explain rationale for limited hydrogen production resources) (Line 37~47, 209~217, 331~356)
4. The results found are relevant and discussed well but are not supported with significant and latest literature. The authors are requested to support the findings with the latest research articles as well.
Added some lastest literatures (Page 15~16)
5. The conclusions section is very brief and must include clearly stated practical and managerial implications for the researchers, policymakers, government organizations and for the society on the whole, along with the limitations of the study.
Added implications and policy suggestions to the conclusion section (Line 440~461, 476~489)
# Add methodology explanation
2.1. Added a subchapter on methodology (Line 100~126)
3.1. Additional explanation on how to calculate energy production potential (evidence data and calculation method) (Line 266~274)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much again for your review.
Sincerely,
Hyodong Moon
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After revision paper, the paper took the shape of a scientific paper. In my opinion, now paper can be accepted after some language corrections. I suggest that a native English speaker go through the entire text and correct some sentances.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Your comments have improved the quality of the work and I am very grateful that I learned a lot while revising the thesis.
Please refer to the cover letter for a response to your comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is fit to contribute to the concerned field of study. However, the authors are suggested to address comment 2&5 in my previous review report –
(a) In comment 2, under the material and method section, I suggested authors add landfill-produced hydrogen separately. This comment is not sufficiently resolved. Further explanation is needed.
(b) My comment 5 is insufficiently addressed. More information for this comment is needed. Further explanations in terms of clear demarcated implications (managerial, practical, and theoretical) are required.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Your comments have improved the quality of the work and I am very grateful that I learned a lot while revising the thesis.
Please refer to the cover letter for a response to your comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
