Logical Analysis on the Strategy for a Sustainable Transition of the World to Green Energy—2050. Smart Cities and Villages Coupled to Renewable Energy Sources with Low Carbon Footprint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article provides a comprehensive study regarding the strategy for a sustainable transition to the world to green energy-2050. The latest studies are focused on the Smart Cities and Villages in the context of integration of renewable energy sources with or without low carbon footprint. The following points can be improved:

1. define more clearly what you mean with Logical Analysis at the beginning of the article. You mention this briefly at the abstract and only in the title of Section 3.3, but given the centrality of the concept in your research, you would need to delineate the concept better.

2. Also, spend some more words in the introduction on the research problem that this article addresses. Is the lacking knowledge the EU gains from existing projects? So, you aim to identify how the methods and measures of projects need to be designed in order to deliver meaningful output?

3. A large part of the article is rather descriptive. Aim to make this more analytical, or targeted towards the aim of the article (see preceding comment on identifying a more clear cut research problem)

4. The Conclusion section is very long. Please consider those ten aspects in a 6. Analysis or Discussion section.

5. In the conclusion you provide recommendations. But who should do something? The EU? The tendering requirements? The projects itself? All? Specify your recommendations.

6. Minor aspects:

Please revise the Figures for be more clear (Fig.6, Fig. 10).

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for their critical comments and thoughtful suggestions.   Based   on   these   comments   and   suggestions, we   have   made   carefully modifications to the original manuscript. We hope that we have understood this time what changes are needed to increase the level of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is overlong (very overoverlong). It presents well-known facts (for specialists) and does not draw any revolutionary conclusion. The good side of it is that it takes into account the current geopolitical situation. 

The article should make some necessary additions to the contribution and innovation.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for their critical comments and thoughtful suggestions.   Based   on   these   comments   and   suggestions, we   have   made   carefully modifications to the original manuscript. We hope that we have understood this time what changes are needed to increase the level of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research presents the strategy for a sustainable transition to the world to green energy in future. The authors need to restate their entire study in a different way, otherwise the study cannot be published. In detail, reviewers have a few comments as follows:
- Authors should choose keywords again. Choose only the most characteristic keywords to describe the research.
- Authors should particularly rethink the way their research is presented. Almost all the parts have confusion. In the method section, there is no presentation of any method of the study, similarly, in the results section, there are no results of the study. It would be better if the authors approached the study as a review. The authors should refer to some recent paper to clarify the novel of this paper. I suggest some paper as follows: Mission, challenges, and prospects of renewable energy development in Vietnam; COVID-19 and the global shift progress to clean energy; Perspective review on Municipal Solid Waste-to-energy route: Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular economy; Forecasting of future greenhouse gas emission trajectory for India using energy and economic indexes with various metaheuristic algorithms; Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy system and the shift progress to renewable energy: Opportunities, challenges, and policy implications; Integrating renewable sources into energy system for smart city as a sagacious strategy towards clean and sustainable process.
- Many figures have dropped resolution. Authors should consider redrawing (e.g. figure 8, 9, 10).
- The introduction is sketchy and generic. Authors need to highlight new and outstanding points in their research.
- As described above, the entire content in the method section of this study will usually be in the introduction. The content in this section is the same as the literature review and does not present anything about the method.
- Similar to the above, no special results of the study are presented in this section. If approaching this article as a review, the authors should keep the literature up to date. Besides, authors need to be careful with their data sources, Wikipedia is not a standard source.
- Figure 6 looks like it was cut out from another research paper. Authors should review.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for their critical comments and thoughtful suggestions.   Based   on   these   comments   and   suggestions, we   have   made   carefully modifications to the original manuscript. We hope that we have understood this time what changes are needed to increase the level of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article presents general review of the topic without scientific analysis and thus it is kind of an opinion article more than a research article 

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for their critical comments and thoughtful suggestions.   Based   on   these   comments   and   suggestions, we   have   made   carefully modifications to the original manuscript. We hope that we have understood this time what changes are needed to increase the level of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was improved. No more comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been significantly shortened - it is much clearer now. Still it is quite long.

Reviewer 4 Report

can be accepted