Tool Development for Assessing the Strategic Development of Territorial Socio-Economic Systems for the Purposes of Energy Sector Digital Transformation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is difficult to follow. The authors have not really outlined their purpose and the need for the manuscript and when they try to do so, they are often redundant and make arguments lacking support. The introduction is rambling and, while it addresses many issues (often redundantly), is organized poorly. The Results and Discussion section have no real discussion and the manuscript fails to address how the "results" of the study contribute to the field and even what it means to the study area being addressed. Citations are primarily Russian and need to reflect a broader global realm of researchers.
There are numerous editorial issues and I have listed several of them below:
Lines 9-11: This is not a sentence
Line 11: Add a period after industry, delete ", therefore," and capitalize The
Line 12: Delete "most" and replace "as" with "and"
Line 14: Add "can" after industry and change "affects" to "affect"
Line 16: Change "must" to "needs to"
Line 18: Change indicators" to "indicators'"
Lines 19-20: Add comma after adapted and change "system ...RIC," to "System (in accordance ...RIC)"
Line 27: Change "has been" to "was"
Lines 28-29: Change "since" to "in" and add "and" after 2019 and delete "based on existing muncipalties"
Line 32: Change "will" to "can"
Line 33: Add "and" before CO2 and delete", and so on"
Line 35; Change "The" to "These Russian researchers"
Line 37: Who is Raymond? Raymond Lee?
Line 57: Few readers will under the term prosumers
Lines 65-99: The organization of this section leaves much to be desired. It is difficult to follow as it is written.
Table 2: It will read much more easily if the columns are aligned
Line 107: which authors?
Lines 107-110: Avoid one-sentence paragraphs
Lines 117-119: The first sentence and second sentence appear to be at odds with one another. The conclusion seems to be "why write this paper then?"
Line 126-127: First sentence is a tautology and completely redundant.
Line 130: Add "system" after classification
Lines 161-165: First you say formulate your own and then you formulate one
Materials and Methods Section: This section is largely a continuation of the Introduction and offers little in the way of Materials and Methods until subsection 3.2
Results and Discussion: Offers some results that are very hard to follow and little or no discussion of their importance or relevance
Figure 2: Hard to see how this is a strategic map
Table 3: The organization of this table (both structurally and functionally) makes it difficult to ascertain the material
Figure 3: This is virtually the same figure as Figure 1. Maybe find a way to combine
Figure 4: Virtually the same figure as Figure 2. Maybe find a way to combine
Table 4: There is no Table 4
Table 5 (should be Table 4) is the same as Table 3. Combine in some way.
Figure 5: What do the colors mean?
English needs a strong editing
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract should be rewritten. the abstract mainly includes the research background, research period, research methods, and research significance, and should focus on the main findings of the paper.
2. The introduction section is too long. It is suggested to separate the introduction and literature review into a separate section, focusing on the main contributions of this paper in the introduction section and highlighting the gaps between the paper's research and previous scholars' research in the literature review section.
3. The applicability of the method needs to be explained in detail, and it is suggested that this section be rewritten.
4. The results section needs a separate discussion section that compares the results of this paper with other scholars, identifies the main differences, and explains the reasons.
5. The conclusion section should have policy implications.
6. Add the shortcomings and outlook of the paper's research in the conclusion section.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
accept
