Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The primary goal of the current research paper is to prepare a bibliometric analysis to trace the development trajectory and thematic evolution within the Renewable Power Systems field. It is clearly formulated, and no further improvements are necessary.

The authors have conducted a thorough analysis, reviewing a substantial amount of literature and relevant studies related to renewable power systems. Their focus on bibliometric analysis to track the development of research topics over time, identify key trends, and assess the impact of renewable energy development is commendable. While the analyses provided are comprehensive, I suggest considering including other databases beyond Scopus to ensure in-depth analysis.   

The authors have chosen a suitable method, bibliometric analysis, to determine the evolution and trends. This method is appropriate for achieving the research's goal. Nevertheless, I suggest using more advanced tools (e.g., network analysis, text mining, etc.) to provide a more holistic view of the trends and developments (including regional factors, interdisciplinarity aspects, etc.) and prepare contrasting conclusions and recommendations.

The conclusions in the current research paper are based on the findings derived from the bibliometric analysis. They are relevant and well-formulated. I do not see any necessity for improvements.  Moreover, the authors provide sufficient scientific discussion and add value by synthesising the findings from the provided analysis and offering insights into the evolving landscape.

In conclusion, the research paper demonstrates originality, topical relevance, and methodological rigour. Incorporation of the suggestions mentioned above would add value to the current research, making it worth being published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.

 

We are attaching our point-by-point response to your comments on our paper entitled “Renewable Power Systems: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis”, which is being considered for publication in Energies.

 

All changes are highlighted in yellow.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer wishes to advise the authors to continue to address the topic of sustainability research and the usage of renewable energy. The paper is well-structured and provides an academic contribution. Dear authors, it is recommended that you expand your research focus on the specifics of life cycles of renewable energy sources through further academic works, through projects of the first planning phase, as well as through technological innovation in the implementation of renewable energy sources. The reviewer believes that the paper is worthy of publication with a suggestion to the authors to make concluding remarks, i.e. to transfer certain parts of the text from the concluding remarks to the discussion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.

 

We are attaching our point-by-point response to your comments on our paper entitled “Renewable Power Systems: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis”, which is being considered for publication in Energies.

 

All changes are highlighted in yellow.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written on a relevant topic. The authors present the results of a meta-analysis of renewable energy sources. The proliferation of renewable energy systems suggests the use of technologies and mechanisms to mitigate the effects of counteracting anthropogenic impacts on the environment without hindering economic growth and the social well-being of the nation. The purpose of this article is to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research on the renewal of a powerful energy system at the state level. 

Comments on the article:

1. Specify the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the study, including in the abstract.

2. Bring the volume of the abstract to 150-200 words.

3. Remove abbreviations from the annotation, write in full. Further in the text, at the first mention of the term, give a decoding of the abbreviation and then you can write in an abbreviated version.

4. To present the author's definition of renewable energy sources from the perspective of meta-analysis.

5. Figure 2 – units of measurement are not specified.

6. Table 1 includes a figure. The drawing should have its own numbering and name.

7. The research methodology is not prescribed.

8. The essence of the proposed and used method of analysis is not clear. How the obtained research results can be applied in the future and what is the practical value of these results. Meta–analysis is not a new phenomenon. Then what is the novelty of the article and its practical value?

9. There are no formulas for calculation, the practical aspect is poorly developed, it should be strengthened.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.

 

We are attaching our point-by-point response to your comments on our paper entitled “Renewable Power Systems: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis”, which is being considered for publication in Energies.

 

All changes are highlighted in yellow.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review paper needs to be completely rewritten with a clear objective and a better focus.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs to be revised.

Author Response

.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered all questions and comments, I think that the article can be accepted