Next Article in Journal
Complex Network-Based Evolutionary Game for Knowledge Transfer of Social E-Commerce Platform Enterprise’s Operation Team under Strategy Imitation Preferences
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards Sustainable Fuel Cells and Batteries with an AI Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Distribution Analysis of Community Radio Stations as Means for Promoting Climate Change Adaptation Measures in Agriculture under COVID-19 Scenario, Southern Province, Zambia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Application of Machine Learning Algorithms for Sustainable Business Management Based on Macro-Economic Data: Supervised Learning Techniques Approach
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Economic Efficiency of the Implementation of Digital Technologies in Energy Power

Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15382; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215382
by Victoria Galkovskaya 1,* and Mariia Volos 2
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15382; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215382
Submission received: 15 June 2022 / Revised: 13 September 2022 / Accepted: 10 November 2022 / Published: 18 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Circular Economy and Artificial Intelligence)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the perspective illustrated through your study. Your theme 'Economic efficiency of the implementation of digital technologies in energy power' is a vital area in the subject of global energy transition and climate neutrality drive.

However, there are major concerns that need to be addressed especially toward improving the quality of the study. Authors are encouraged to pay attention to the following comments

 

1) The language quality is not sufficient. For instance, in the abstract, you wrote 'The directions of the further research...' instead of 'The directions of further research....'

2) While digitization and environmental-related aspects are parts of the main elements of the study, its important authors provide more robust and clear information about the role of digitization in the Russian economy. Endeavor to use relevant and recent studies to convey your argument. See examples here (i)https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2932 (ii)https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14056-5

3)The methodology of the study lacks scientific organization. In the current form, a lot of equations were used but without logical arrangement as to guide the readers toward proper understanding. You might need to revise this section significantly by re-arranging the procedure in a more understandable way. 

4) The discussion of the result is also poorly structured because it consists of many short/one-sentence paragraphs, thus rendering the text difficult to follow.

Generally, rigorous work needs to be done in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear colleague,


Thank you very much for sharing your point of view and valuable comments on the paper. We have tried to take them all into account. Please find attached the revised copy of the manuscript. 

 

Victoria Galkovskaya & Marria Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Any corrections for this article

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Thank you very much for sharing your point of view and valuable comments on the paper. We have tried to take them all into account. Please find attached the revised copy of the manuscript. 

Regards,

Victoria Galkovskaya & Mariia Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comment 1: Abstract. The abstract should give the appropriate background to the study of this manuscript.

Comment 2: Figure 2 can be replaced with an image format to better represent the relevant content in the image.

Comment 3: What is the main innovation of this study? It is recommended that the authors elaborate on this.

Comment 4: sections of Introduction. The background of the COVID-19 pandemic seems too simple. The background of the impact of energy on energy and economy needs to be considered under the pandemic. There has already been a large amount of literatures discussing this topic. There is a need to better elaborate the background of the COVID-19 pandemic. Please consider citing following papers: (i) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111990; (ii) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111637; (iii) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138915.

Comment 5: The image format of Figure 3 does not show the relevant content well, so we suggest the authors to modify this with flowcharts or other image formats.

Comment 6: The conclusion section should give the main findings of this manuscript and related policy recommendations.

Comment 7: The limitations of this study and directions for future research should be reflected in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Thank you very much for sharing your point of view and valuable comments on the paper. We have tried to take them all into account. Please find attached the revised copy of the manuscript. 

Regards,

Victoria Galkovskaya & Mariia Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

At the end of the introduction, the authors mention a Chapter. This is a paper or a Chapter?

Also, a guided tour of the article is missing at the end of the Introduction.

The discussion of results is poor and it is not contrasted with the literature available.

The methodology used for computing the costs is standard.

The conclusions are poor.

I do not see enough novelty in the paper that deserves publication.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Thank you very much for sharing your point of view and valuable comments on the paper. We have tried to take them all into account. Please find attached the revised copy of the manuscript. 

Regards,

Victoria Galkovskaya & Mariia Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear referee,

We have tried to address all the your concerns in a proper way.

Regards,

Dr. Galkovskaya, Dr. Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have incorporated comments from the first round of review. My concerns from my previous review have been addressed. I would recommend the paper to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear referee,

We have tried to address all the your concerns in a proper way.

Regards,

Dr. Galkovskaya, Dr. Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors did not reply considering all the points raised by reviewer. Therefore I am against the publication of this paper.

Author Response

Dear referee,

We have tried to address all the your concerns in a proper way.

Regards,

Dr. Galkovskaya, Dr. Volos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop