Evaluation Model for Investment in Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for this interesting approach. I believe that you are overemphasizing the introduction. I wouldn’t present a table or already show the conclusions there. Furthemore, I do not see a literature review or any hypotheses that you test. Finally, I wouldn’t show a diagram each for the results, this makes your article way too long and not easily readible.

Author Response

We are pleased to have been given the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled “Evaluation Model for Investment in Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process.” We would like to greatly thank the two reviewers for the good evaluation and their time and effort in providing insightful guidance. We have done our best to address each of your concerns point by point as outlined below. All revisions were highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word. For the English language and style issues, the manuscript was edited by a professional editor in Editage by CACTUS. The pages and lines in the following response are for the clean version of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

Thank you for this interesting approach. I believe that you are overemphasizing the introduction. I wouldn’t present a table or already show the conclusions there. Furthemore, I do not see a literature review or any hypotheses that you test.

(Response) We appreciate your good evaluation of the paper. We have revised the Introduction section to be more concise. Table 1 has been removed. The methods and results of the study have also been deleted. In line 52~102, we have described the major literature review and hypothesis of this paper and its implications more clearly. The literature review in this study is included in the introduction section (line 52~60) and Indicator section (line 170~200) as in many previous related studies (Chatzimouratidis & Pilavachi, 2009; Kim et al.,2019; Asakereh et al., 2017; Kim & Kim, 2018; Keeley & Matsumoto, 2018;). We have removed the duplicate content described in the Conclusion section. Also, we tried to elaborate on the conclusion section. In line 564~ 583, we highlighted the major results and related them with previous studies.

Finally, I wouldn’t show a diagram each for the results, this makes your article way too long and not easily readible.

(Response) Considering your comments, we have removed Diagrams 4-6 and changed it to table 9. The remaining diagrams were kept because they showed intuitive differences in the relative importance of the indicators.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper the authors use a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to identify which are the main indicators that affect investment in solar photovoltaic power projects. The study is interesting not only because it gives a new economic insight about the problem, but also because it studies a very important sector of the society, in a context where environmental concerns are very important. I liked very much the paper, and I just recommend some changes, namely in:

i) abstract. It seems that it is bigger than the requested (200 words). Please, confirm it. If necessaty make some cuts on it.

ii) I found the conclusions poor. Authors should not only highlight the results, but also to relate them with theory and/or previous works (in the case of different findings, justify those differences).

iii) Although I am not perfect in written English, I think I found some errors. For example, I think that the "has" in the first sentence of the paragraph is not correct. Please, make (or ask to make) a final revision on it.

Author Response

We are pleased to have been given the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled “Evaluation Model for Investment in Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process.” We would like to greatly thank the two reviewers for the good evaluation and their time and effort in providing insightful guidance. We have done our best to address each of your concerns point by point as outlined below. All revisions were highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word. For the English language and style issues, the manuscript was edited by a professional editor in Editage by CACTUS. The pages and lines in the following response are for the clean version of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

In this paper the authors use a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to identify which are the main indicators that affect investment in solar photovoltaic power projects. The study is interesting not only because it gives a new economic insight about the problem, but also because it studies a very important sector of the society, in a context where environmental concerns are very important. I liked very much the paper, and I just recommend some changes, namely in:

i) abstract. It seems that it is bigger than the requested (200 words). Please, confirm it. If necessaty make some cuts on it. 

(Response) We appreciate your good evaluation of the paper. Thank you for the thoughtful comment. Exceeding the limit was our mistake. We revised the abstract to satisfy the limit.

ii) I found the conclusions poor. Authors should not only highlight the results, but also to relate them with theory and/or previous works (in the case of different findings, justify those differences).

(Response) Thank you for the useful comment. We tried to elaborate on the conclusion section. In line 547~ 566, we highlighted the major results and related them with previous studies. In line 69~95, we added an explanation of the implications of our research.

iii) Although I am not perfect in written English, I think I found some errors. For example, I think that the "has" in the first sentence of the paragraph is not correct. Please, make (or ask to make) a final revision on it.

(Response) Following your comment, the manuscript is now edited by professional English editor service in Editage by CACTUS.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf