Opportunities, Challenges and Strategies for Developing Electric Vehicle Energy Storage Systems under the Carbon Neutrality Goal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Development of Electric Vehicle Energy Storage within the Goal of Carbon Neutrality is quite interesting and has been comprehensively discussed. However, this script needs improvement. Some of the improvements that need to be included are :

1. The contribution needs to be improved; a review article must contain more than an analysis from previous research. A review article must clearly state the author's idea and point of view on the problem.

2. Existing research gaps are addressed but not presented explicitly. A table or figure visualizing the gaps is recommended. 

3. We suggest more references for a better experience for the readers. A review article needs a comprehensive analysis of the problem. Maybe need additional 5-10 more references are good.

In general, the English used in the manuscript is quite good. But there are several paragraphs, there are very long sentences. This sentence needs to be perfected and refined so that this text is more interesting to read (example: in lines 452-456).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.DOCX

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes the methods to create an adequate market environment and business models. But paper topology is not clear and not explain also.

More references are needed. Comparison is must for the improvement.

Missing Developing EV-Based Energy Storage concept. Topology working is missing.

 

 

Ok

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.DOCX

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript analyzes the necessity, feasible measures, and policy suggestions regarding the development of electric vehicle energy storage. The manuscript is interesting and the Authors seem to have a clear view of the existing state of the art. The only suggestion is to revise the manuscript to improve English grammar.

English grammar should be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In this revision of the manuscript:

1. The contribution is more visible with some added analysis from previous research. Previous research gaps have been seen and have been well presented. A table or image visualizing gaps has been added.

2. The authors have added references.

3. English has been improved as requested.

N/A

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper revision is ok. But add new technology also for improvement. Add some more references.

 

 

No Issue, Ok

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf