A Policy Review of Green Hydrogen Economy in Southern Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and with its original methodology it is believed that it has a contribution to the literature. Before the publication process, the authors should improve literature review for both the theory and methodology.

Author Response

Please find attached point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an important topic; it is interesting to read but lacks scientific novelty in both methodology and results. Also, its structure is rather unusual concerning most research/review papers. 

However, in my opinion, this paper may be turned into a publishable article after some improvements:

• The structure of the paper should be revised to a classical form (introduction->literature review->metods->Results and discussion). Some materials from current Chapers 4 and 5 could be moved to the introduction/literature review.
• Research methods should be clearly described. Even if this is the review of legislation, it is expected to be done systematically, and you should be able to define steps taken.
• The discussion part should be expanded and clearly related to the research results. Currently, it is based on two literature sources and is rather generic. Please be more specific regarding the countries analysed and their existing/needed policies.

Some additional remarks:

Text on page 3, starting with line 122, is taken from the guidelines. Also, there is a mistake “This The enabling conditions“ in line 139 on the same page 3.

Author Response

Please find attached point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is interesting and well written. In my opinion, it only needs a few corrections.

The full name should be used on first use, e.g. for UN SDG. (p. 1)

The paragraphs (lines 123-137, p. 3) are unnecessary.

"The electrolysis plant was decommissioned in 2015 due to the high cost of power and shortages of electricity supply, Sable Chemical Industries electrolysis plant was decommissioned in 2015." (l. 421-423, p. 10). Unnecessary repetition.

The descriptions in Fig. 3 are unreadable.

It should be "gass" not "grass" (l. 606, p. 14)

Author Response

Please find attached point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript. However, the description of methods seems a bit problematic: it is first presented after half of the steps (3 out of 6) are already compleated. Thus, the authors are advised to continue rethinking the article‘s structure to be more coherent.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached point by point response.

Best regards,

Imasiku

(On behalf of all authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf