Evolution of Global Crude Oil Trade Network Structure and Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper by Xiaojin Yuan et al. entitled “Evolution of Global Crude Oil Trade Network Structure and Resilience” reports the structural evolution of the trade network using a complex network approach and simulates the impact of disruptions on its resilience. Results indicate that the global crude oil trade network expands and becomes more closely connected, and five major trade groups have been formed. Further simulation reveals that the impact of national disruptions on global trade resilience is not linear. Also, the influence from core countries is significantly higher than peripheral countries. The study is novel and acceptable in Sustainability but after addressing following minor comments:

·         Always write keywords in alphabetical order.

·         Referencing style must be corrected.

·         The entire manuscript requires a grammar and spelling check.

·         In Figure 1. Number of nodes and edges, 2007-2020, a text ox with Chinese is present here, please convert it into English. Moreover, a dip in year 2017 is observed, what is the reason for this big dip in nodes and edges number?

·         There is Chinese in several figures, please convert into English.

·         There is discrepancy in Table numbering, please number them as Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and so on…

·         Please improve the conclusion part.

·         Can the authors add a graphical abstract to the manuscript.

·         Please improve the references part by connecting the study with recent reputed publication such as Catalysis Reviews 64 (1), 1-86, etc.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewers for taking time out of their busy schedules to carefully, patiently, and meticulously review this manuscript. In response to the comments and suggestions made by the experts, we make the following changes, additions, and improvements. The details please see modification instructions 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this an interesting and well developed paper.  The evolution was well discussed and modelling well developed.  One comment I would make though is that perhaps a brief discussion of sustainability in the context of this industry would sit the paper more closely for the journal and be of interest to readership.  What is the impact of 'Network Structure and Resilience' on sustainability factors in the evolution of the industry?

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewers for taking time out of their busy schedules to carefully, patiently, and meticulously review this manuscript. In response to the comments and suggestions made by the experts, we make the following changes, additions, and improvements. The detail please see modification instruction 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the Introduction: "…It resulted in the increasing concentration of oil production areas and the imbalance between supply and demand, of which the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2020 is a concrete manifestation." – the Author should explain what they exactly understand occurring in this part of the consideration. Now the Authors rather flatten the conflict and refer to it superficially.

It is true that the science market still needs similar works, but how do the proposed consideration and study results fill this gap? What is the additional value of the proposed approach?

The study aim should be written directly and clearly stated both in the Abstract and Introduction. Now it is not visible. The authors indicate that simulation methods were used in the study, but it is given in general. It is worth adding more precisely what type of simulation methods were used. Another question is why exactly the proposed methods and approaches were selected. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed methods and approach?

Table 1 needs to be clarified. What is the value represented? What unit of value measure is presented? A table title is enigmatic and not clear.

The study results are not visible; however, parts of its description are in 4.3 and 4.4. The Authors referred to the model's quality but did not show the basic verification parameters. 

The Discussion and Conclusion should include the above remarks.

Literature review should be widended..

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewers for taking time out of their busy schedules to carefully, patiently, and meticulously review this manuscript. In response to the comments and suggestions made by the experts, we make the following changes, additions, and improvements. The detail please see modification instruction 3

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is revised in an efficient way and can be accepted after addressing the last comment properly. 

In last comment, following article is referred (Recent developments in Alumina supported hydrodesulfurization catalysts for the production of Sulfur-free Refinery products: a Technical review). Please correct it. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done.  The changes have met my concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

 I accept the resposne to review.