Focus on Climate Action: What Level of Synergy and Trade-Off Is There between SDG 13; Climate Action and Other SDGs in Nepal?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Focus on Climate Action: What level of synergy and trade-off is there between SDG 13; Climate action and other SDGs in Nepal?
1. Make the abstract less redundant. Try to reduce it by 25% without losing any key content.
2. I understand that the authors have difficulty in using recent data for 2015-2020. However, reporting data from 1990-2014 does not seem to provide insight into current condition. Note that 2014 was 8 years ago.
3. Elaborate more on this statement. “The emission targets of SDG 13 i.e., T 13.1.3.1 and T 13.1.3.8 was positively and strongly correlated to the per capita energy consumption target of SDG 7 i.e., T 7.1.1.1 meaning they are strongly related and dependent on one another.”
4. How would the framework be applied with extended boundary by including more SDGs and interpreted to analyze the dual interaction?
5. The conclusions should be also shortened by avoiding peripheral topics, they did not seem to be the final stone in their build-up of logic.
Author Response
Please refer the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Comments
Focus on Climate Action: What level of synergy and trade-off is there between SDG 13; Climate action and other SDGs in Nepal?
energies-2108214
1. The abstract needs to be improved. Currently the abstract looks incomplete and does not give the proper focus of the research. . Abstract should be structured with a focus on the main concerns and general justification for the work; subject of study and main factors affecting it; methods and procedures; main results; and general conclusion.The authors should read some good papers of the journal and re write it.
2. The introduction is weak. The motivation for the research is missing.
3. The author should highlight the research objectives of the research in the introduction separately. Also, how the authors would address their need to be mentioned.
4. The manuscript lacks flow. The authors should make more efforts in presenting the work more systematically and clearly. The authors(s) have cited old citations throughout the manuscript. The author(s) are also suggested to includes references from the latest publications (year 2022).
5. The implications are less developed. The authors should provide more insights on it.
6. The introduction lacks in gaining attention and highlighting the need of the study. The author(s) should mention research objectives of the research separately.
7. The findings of the study need to be more elaborate. This section needs to be developed and supported by previous work. The discussion needs to be improvised with a theoretical contribution.The findings of the discussion need to be strengthened with the previous research work.
8. The discussion needs to be improvised with theoretical contribution.
9. The conclusion is very weak. It should also be an extrapolation of the key findings from the research and not a summary. So, there should be conclusions around the background theory, data theory/analysis and, key outcomes. The authors should have included the following sub-sections within the conclusion section with more details:
• Implications to theory and practice should be clearly stated;
• Key lessons learnt;
• Limitations of this research;
10. The selection of the case location should be more elaborated.
11. Proofread the whole manuscript as many typos and grammar errors are present.
12. Future research directions should be improved; in that, they should stem from the awareness of the limitations and opening avenues related to the obtained outcomes
13. Author(s) should try to include some novel implications and unique contributions in the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors has revised as suggested, now the manuscript is suitable for publication.
