Clean Energy Action Index Efficiency: An Analysis in Global Uncertainty Contexts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the paper is interesting, relevant and scientific-sounding; however, I marked some notes that could further its promotion:

1. In the section 2.1. The particularity of clean energy stocks, their wide description should be given, provided for some examples of their value dynamics. 

2. The equations (201-202) should be numerated end edited in English.

3. In Table 1. Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA), the intrepretation of signals is given as Authors' elaboration, but this method is widely known. So I suggest adding some description of DFA to explain the choice of range of signals, accepted in the article. 

4. The difference between sections 4. Results and 5. Results should be explained clear. In my opinion, the paper would win if in the section 4 veluable methodological results are given, and in section 5 - confirmation of hypothesis (new theorethical provisions and practical recommendations). 

5. The Discussion section should contain straight description of advances of Authors' findings over existing researches. 

Good luck!

Elimination of fragments of non-English text, spelling check

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

Please see the attachment. 

Best Regards, 

The authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The narrative of the aim can be clarified better in English:

""This paper aims to examine the efficiency in the Clean Energy""

... examining the efficiency in ...????

Dichey Fuller and PP tests can be explained better, clarifying if there is a trend or not ......

 

Table 5 has headings in Portuguese , not English...... 

The discussion is scanty and only qualitative. Add some more detailed analysis 

 

ask for some revisions

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2, 

Please see the attachment. 

Best Regards, 

The authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Literature citing in abstract should be avoider or differently formulated. Keywords should be chosen to reflect research more detail. Scientific contribution of paper is missing in abstract. The scientific contribution is too general and should be defined in more detail in the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3, 

Please see the attachment. 

Best Regards, 

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good luck!