Next Article in Journal
Environmental Factors Indirectly Impact the Nematode Carbon Budget of Subalpine Spruce Forests
Next Article in Special Issue
Hydrocarbon Bio-Jet Fuel from Bioconversion of Poplar Biomass: Life Cycle Assessment of Site-Specific Impacts
Previous Article in Journal
Informal Employment in the Forest Sector: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond Monetary Cost-Benefit Analyses: Combining Economic, Environmental and Social Analyses of Short Rotation Coppice Poplar Production in Slovakia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/f13030461
Review Report
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analyzing the Consequences of Sharing Principles on Different Economies: A Case Study of Short Rotation Coppice Poplar Wood Panel Production Value Chain

Forests 2022, 13(3), 461; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030461
by Enrique Alejandro Perdomo Echenique 1,*, Morten Ryberg 2, Eldbjørg Blikra Vea 2, Peter Schwarzbauer 3 and Franziska Hesser 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Forests 2022, 13(3), 461; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030461
Submission received: 25 February 2022 / Revised: 11 March 2022 / Accepted: 14 March 2022 / Published: 16 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Poplar Biomass for the Bioeconomy: Production, Prediction and Sustainability)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

Please find my comments and suggestions in the attached file.

Kindly

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Well written and interesting article.
There are minor comments.

Line 177 (ii) electricity mixes from Slovakia were used for both cases, the data is provided by the Ecoinvent 3.4 database- How about is Austria? Difference of electricity mixes in Austria and Slovakia affects results of the LCA? 

Line 330- Equation 4 contains only GHG emissions. How did you consider other environmental impacts?

Line 371- Figure 2

Figure 4- I could not find processes to calculate EI of GVA, FCE and GF.

Reference 7 & 31- web pages?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the introduction lacks a background in terms of support programs, legislation, and access to renewable resources based on short rotation coppices in Austria and Slovakia. There is a fundamental difference between the two countries in this approach.

Figure 5 includes the main environmental hotspots for Slovakia. I think it would be appropriate to make a similar picture for Austria as well.

The discussion section lacks a deeper discussion with similar works by other authors. I recommend a major overhaul. To a large extent, it provides only a summary of its results, which are generally discussed very little. Part of the discussion belongs rather to the "Conclusions" section.

In terms of formal level, in my opinion, the template for contributions in Forests was not followed (mainly tables, paragraph indentation, bibliography). The authors have probably tried to publish the manuscript in other journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop