Renewable Energy Integration for Sustainable Economic Growth: Insights and Challenges via Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is of an overview nature and its value may result from the attempt made to systematize the knowledgе, but the purpose of the paper has not been clearly stated. I agree with the most of the Authors' statements, however, from the point of view of the principles of scientific research methodology, the current form of the paper is insufficient – the article seems more popularizing than scientific one. Moreover, the conclusions drawn are obvious and do not show the added value of the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper is of an overview nature and its value may result from the attempt made to systematize the knowledge, but the purpose of the paper has not been clearly stated. I agree with most of the Authors' statements, however, from the point of view of the principles of scientific research methodology, the current form of the paper is insufficient – the article seems more popular than the scientific one. Moreover, the conclusions drawn are obvious and do not show the added value of the paper.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We add more information to make this research more valuable.
First, we fixed our purpose in lines 114-154 in the revised manuscript with blue font. Second, we modified part 4 for more attractive. Please see the lines 373-835 in the revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Major Changes:

The article is well-written but it is very disjointed. The authors discuss topic after topic without providing any kind of transitions between the concepts. There is no flow to the paper. The authors need to organize this paper much more strictly, allowing a natural flow to the writing that makes more sense of what they have tried to do.

The authors present essentially a literature review but that only highlights whether the topic is important enough to generate multiple studies; it does not PROVE that nonrenewable energy is an important element of economic growth nor does it PROVE that renewable energy can accomplish everything they state it does achieve. This is especially true considering the authors are not highlighting the actual results of the various works dealing with renewable energy but rather the number of citations and other factors associated with the studies they evaluate. As a result, this article invokes the “so what?” question. There is no significant contribution to the research topic per se.

 The authors are too repetitive with some of their arguments, particularly with asserting the value of their paper. They are continually justifying themselves in their argument.

 Minor Changes:

 There is no Figure 5 in the text – it jumps from Figure 4 to Figure 6.

 The authors need to engage in some proofreading, as they have fragments of sentences inside the paper – pp. 3, 5, etc.

English language use was fine.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. The article is well-written but it is very disjointed. The authors discuss topic after topic without providing any kind of transitions between the concepts. There is no flow to the paper. The authors need to organize this paper much more strictly, allowing a natural flow to the writing that makes more sense of what they have tried to do.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We added more information to ensure that each section of the paper logically follows the previous one. Please see all blue font transaction phrases in the revised version

2. The authors present essentially a literature review but that only highlights whether the topic is important enough to generate multiple studies; it does not PROVE that nonrenewable energy is an important element of economic growth nor does it PROVE that renewable energy can accomplish everything they state it does achieve. This is especially true considering the authors are not highlighting the actual results of the various works dealing with renewable energy but rather the number of citations and other factors associated with the studies they evaluate. As a result, this article invokes the “so what?” question. There is no significant contribution to the research topic per se.

Response: Thanks for your review and comments.

We modified the literature review part to strengthen the evidential and substantive aspects of our literature review to make a more meaningful contribution to the research topic and prove the relationship between renewable energy and economic growth. We also grouped the content into three main sections to emphasize the relationship between renewable energy and economic growth, the role of nonrenewable energy in economic growth, and the challenges associated with renewable energy integration

Please see lines 145-286 in the revised manuscript in blue font

3. The authors are too repetitive with some of their arguments, particularly in asserting the value of their paper. They are continually justifying themselves in their argument.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments and constructive feedback on our paper. We acknowledge the observation of repetitiveness in our paper. Our intention was to provide clarity and emphasize the significance of our findings by reinforcing certain arguments

In response to this feedback, we will revise the manuscript to streamline our arguments and eliminate redundancy. We will carefully review the paper to ensure that our points are made effectively without excessive repetition. To address the issue of repetitiveness, we will rephrase certain sections and consolidate related arguments to create a more concise and coherent narrative.

4. There is no Figure 5 in the text – it jumps from Figure 4 to Figure 6.

Response: Thanks for your comments. This is our mistake, we fixed them in the revised manuscript

5. The authors need to engage in some proofreading, as they have fragments of sentences inside the paper – pp. 3, 5, etc.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's feedback and the time taken to review our paper. These sentence fragments were not intentional but rather the result of an oversight during the editing phase. We take this feedback seriously, and we are committed to rectifying these errors. We will conduct a comprehensive proofreading of the entire paper to ensure that all sentence fragments are removed. Once again, we thank the reviewer for their valuable input, which will undoubtedly contribute to enhancing the overall quality of our paper

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is interesting and worth describing. However, the method of implementation requires correction. In the Introduction, the authors presented an introduction to the topic. The Introduction section has some deficiencies. There is no clearly defined purpose of the work.

The research gap has been identified.

The Introduction section should include research hypotheses or research questions. At the end there should also be a summary of the content of each section.

The abstract is defective. Does not contain required items. There is no information about the first part of the research results, where bibliometric data were provided.

The layout requires correction. The content of individual sections is not entirely accurate. Subsection titles are missing in each section: 1 Introduction, 3 Results.

The title of section 3. Methodology is incorrect. Methodology is the study of scientific research methods, their effectiveness and cognitive value. The author certainly does not want to examine research methods. Section 3 should be called Materials and methods.

The Materials and methods section should contain material sources and data. Additionally, the methods used must be described. The research scheme and structure should also be presented. This information is basically provided. Alternatively, I would better describe the purposefulness of individual stages of research.

Section 4. Empirical results has an incorrect title. Suggests that research is experimental. Meanwhile, it is based on already finished articles and no new research results are created. The article is a review. I suggest calling section 4. Results

There should be subsection titles for section 4.

The article is missing a Discussion section. The Discussion section is crucial, the most important in the article. I understand Discussion as referring to other research after presenting your research results. In my opinion, conducting research without a clear comparison and reference to other research means that the obtained results cannot be properly assessed. References to research by other authors should be used. In the article, such a scientific discussion is in section 4. Therefore, I propose changing this section to Results and discussion. Then you need to supplement and strengthen the scientific discussion in this section. Another way is to create a separate Discussion section.

.

In the Conclusions section, you should certainly refer to the hypotheses or research questions. Can the hypotheses be verified positively or negatively? Conclusions can be bulleted. Conclusions should be a synthesis. There is no point in mentioning again how data is collected. We need to come to specific conclusions. In its current form, the Conclusions section is unacceptable.

Line 512. There is an error in the number of documents: "Dervis has 73, 70, 6,670, and 69 documents"?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. The subject of the article is interesting and worth describing. However, the method of implementation requires correction. In the Introduction, the authors presented an introduction to the topic. The Introduction section has some deficiencies. There is no clearly defined purpose of the work.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and their insights regarding the clarity of our paper's purpose. Our paper aims to investigate the correlation between renewable energy adoption and economic growth while considering regional and country-specific contexts. We recognize that our Introduction section may have some deficiencies. To rectify this, we will revise the Introduction to provide a more concise and focused overview of the paper's purpose, which is shown in lines 114-154 in the revised manuscript with blue font.

2. The research gap has been identified.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment and are pleased that they have identified our research gap. Our research indeed focuses on addressing the gap in understanding the correlation between renewable energy adoption and economic growth, particularly within the context of diverse regional and country-specific factors. This gap in the existing literature is of paramount importance as it highlights the need to consider regional and country-specific factors when assessing the impact of renewable energy on economic growth. Our study not only identifies this research gap but also provides a comprehensive analysis of empirical data and contextual factors, shedding light on the intricate relationship between renewable energy and economic growth. We welcome any further insights or suggestions from the reviewer on how we can enhance our paper's treatment of the identified research gap in the revised manuscript with blue font.

3. The Introduction section should include research hypotheses or research questions. At the end, there should also be a summary of the content of each section.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and agree that adding research hypotheses or research questions in the Introduction section, as well as providing a summary of each section's content, will improve the overall structure of the paper. In response to the reviewer's suggestion, we have included our research questions in lines 143-154 in the Introduction section to provide a clear overview of our research direction. We would like to extend our thanks to the reviewer for constructive feedback, which has contributed to enhancing the overall quality of our paper.

4. The abstract is defective. Does not contain the required items. There is no information about the first part of the research results, where bibliometric data were provided.

Response: Thanks for your comments and suggestions, we improved the abstract by incorporating the missing information about the bibliometric analysis. Please see lines 5-24 in the revised manuscript in blue font

5. The layout requires correction. The content of individual sections is not entirely accurate. Subsection titles are missing in each section: 1 Introduction, 3 Results.

Response: Thanks for your comments and suggestions, we have carefully reviewed and made revisions to the paper to address the issues raised. We have made significant improvements to the layout and organization of the paper. Subsection titles have been added to Section 4 (Results) to enhance the accuracy of content and make it more reader-friendly. Furthermore, we have ensured that each section of the paper now follows a clear structure with appropriate subsection titles in the revised manuscript.

6. The title of section 3. The methodology is incorrect. Methodology is the study of scientific research methods, their effectiveness, and cognitive value. The author certainly does not want to examine research methods. Section 3 should be called Materials and methods.

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the section title. We appreciate your suggestion, and we agree that "Research Methods" is a more appropriate title for Section 3. We have made this change accordingly to improve the clarity and accuracy of our paper's organization. This modification ensures that readers will better understand the content of this section.

7. The Materials and methods section should contain material sources and data. Additionally, the methods used must be described. The research scheme and structure should also be presented. This information is basically provided. Alternatively, I would better describe the purposefulness of individual stages of research.

Response: We appreciate your feedback on the Materials and Methods section. Your suggestion to include more detailed information on data sources, the methods used, the research scheme, and the purposefulness of individual research stages is valuable. We will make the necessary revisions to this section to provide a more comprehensive description of our research approach. This will help readers better understand our data sources, research methods, and the rationale behind each stage of our study. Thank you for your constructive input, which will enhance the overall quality and clarity of our paper in lines in the revised manuscript.

8. Section 4. Empirical results has an incorrect title. Suggests that research is experimental. Meanwhile, it is based on already finished articles and no new research results are created. The article is a review. I suggest calling section 4. Results

Response: Your suggestion to relabel "Section 4: Empirical Results" as "Section 4: Results and discussions" is duly noted and appreciated. The revised title aligns more accurately with the nature of this work, which is primarily a comprehensive review rather than an experimental study. This adjustment helps clarify the content and methodology employed in this section, enhancing the overall coherence and understanding of the research. Thank you for your valuable input, which contributes to the refinement of this article's structure and clarity.

9. There should be subsection titles for section 4.

Response: In response to your suggestion, we have introduced subsection titles for Section 4: Results and discussions. These subsection titles provide a clear structure to the section, making it easier for readers to navigate and comprehend the various aspects of the bibliometric analysis conducted in this study which are described in blue color in the revised manuscript. We appreciate your input, which enhances the organization and accessibility of our research findings

10. The article is missing a Discussion section. The Discussion section is crucial, the most important in the article. I understand Discussion as referring to other research after presenting your research results. In my opinion, conducting research without a clear comparison and reference to other research means that the obtained results cannot be properly assessed. References to research by other authors should be used. In the article, such a scientific discussion is in section 4. Therefore, I propose changing this section to Results and discussion. Then you need to supplement and strengthen the scientific discussion in this section. Another way is to create a separate Discussion section.

Response: We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of a dedicated Discussion section in research articles. In response to your suggestion, we will make the following revisions to enhance the scientific discussion in our article. We will change the title of Section 4 from "Results" to "Results and Discussion" to reflect the inclusion of scientific discussion within this section. We will expand and strengthen the scientific discussion in the "Results and Discussion" section. This will include a more comprehensive comparison and reference to other research by different authors to provide a broader context for our research results. By making these changes, we aim to improve the overall quality and comprehensiveness of our article. Thank you for your valuable input, which will contribute to a more robust and informative research paper.

11. In the Conclusions section, you should certainly refer to the hypotheses or research questions. Can the hypotheses be verified positively or negatively? Conclusions can be bulleted. Conclusions should be a synthesis. There is no point in mentioning again how data is collected. We need to come to specific conclusions. In its current form, the Conclusions section is unacceptable.

Response: Thank you for your feedback and suggestions regarding the Conclusions section. We acknowledge the need for a more concise and focused conclusion that directly addresses our hypotheses or research questions. In response to your feedback, we will make the following revisions in lines 776-871 with blue font in the revised manuscript.

12. Line 512. There is an error in the number of documents: "Dervis has 73, 70, 6,670, and 69 documents"?

Response: Thank you for pointing out the error in the number of documents for the authors mentioned in line 512. We apologize for the oversight. We appreciate your attention to detail, and this correction has been duly noted in lines 532 the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article examines research in economic growth and renewable energy. I consider this topic of the article interesting for readers of Sustainability journal.

The abstract is processed in an appropriate manner. The keywords were chosen appropriately.

As for the Introduction section, it is too comprehensive and thus becomes confusing. The Introduction section doesn´t contain all required parts: define the issue, explain why the given issue is topical and important, summarize the findings on the given topic to date, identify research gap, and define the aim of the authors of the article.

The "Literature Review" section should be a consistent literature review on the given topic. Unfortunately, this is not the case. (Why is the objective listed in this section?) Please, revise this part of the text.

The “Research Methodology” section is not well structured and argued. Add to the "Data collection" section the works of which authors you are based on. The process of a systematic literature review is more complicated. Explain each step of your process. The section "Bibliometric analysis" is not processed systematically. It contains a list of terms and their definitions without reference to the submitted article.

In my opinion, the "Empirical Results" section is too extensive. Authors should clearly state the key findings. Text that is visible from the figures should not be presented.

Consider including conclusions that replicate the text previously presented. On the contrary, I recommend including the "Discussion" section, which is completely missing here.

Respect the formal requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

1. The article examines research in economic growth and renewable energy. I consider this topic of the article interesting for readers of the Sustainability journal.

Response: I appreciate your favorable response pertaining to the subject matter discussed in the post. We appreciate your positive response regarding the relevance and appeal of the topics of economic growth and renewable energy for the readership of the Sustainability journal. Should you have any further remarks, recommendations, or inquiries regarding the essay, please do not hesitate to express them. We greatly appreciate your opinion as it serves to improve the quality and relevancy of our work.

2. The abstract is processed in an appropriate manner. The keywords were chosen appropriately.

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the abstract and the choice of keywords. We're pleased to hear that you found them appropriate. If you have any more comments or suggestions as you continue to review the article, please don't hesitate to share them. Your feedback is valuable in improving the overall quality of the research.

3. As for the Introduction section, it is too comprehensive and thus becomes confusing. The Introduction section doesn´t contain all required parts: define the issue, explain why the given issue is topical and important, summarize the findings on the given topic to date, identify research gap, and define the aim of the authors of the article.

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the Introduction section. It appears that you've identified several areas where improvement is needed. Our revised introduction maintains clarity, addresses the key points mentioned earlier, and provides a structured and compelling overview of the research's objectives and significance. It also incorporates relevant citations to enhance credibility. Please see lines 29-166 in the revised introduction section.

4. The "Literature Review" section should be a consistent literature review on the given topic. Unfortunately, this is not the case. (Why is the objective listed in this section?) Please, revise this part of the text.

Response: Thanks for your comments and suggestions, in this section, we provide a comprehensive literature review that delves into the intricate relationship between economic growth and renewable energy. Our objective here is to analyze existing research and identify key themes, trends, and knowledge gaps in this critical area of study. The revised section in lines 168-298 in blue font now provides a more consistent and topic-focused literature review, removing any unnecessary elements and clarifying the purpose of this part of the paper.

5. The “Research Methodology” section is not well structured and argued. Add to the "Data collection" section the works of which authors you are based on. The process of a systematic literature review is more complicated. Explain each step of your process. The section "Bibliometric analysis" is not processed systematically. It contains a list of terms and their definitions without reference to the submitted article.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will make the necessary revisions to the "Research Methodology" and "Bibliometric Analysis" sections to address your concerns.

In response to your comments, we will enhance the structure and clarity of the "Research Methodology" section (lines 331-370). Additionally, we will provide a more detailed explanation of our systematic literature review process.

In the "Data Collection" section (lines 300-330), we will specify the authors and works on which our systematic literature review is based. This will include a clear reference to the articles and sources we used as the foundation for our review.

6. In my opinion, the "Empirical Results" section is too extensive. The authors should clearly state the key findings. Text that is visible from the figures should not be presented.

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the "Empirical Results" section. We understand your concern about its length and clarity. To address this, we will make the following improvements:

In response to your suggestion, we will revise the "Results and Discussions" section to provide a more concise and focused presentation of the key findings. We will ensure that the text highlights the most important results without unnecessary details. Further, we will also ensure that any text included in the figures is not repeated verbatim in the main text. Instead, we will use figures to complement and illustrate the key findings, with the main text providing a clear and concise explanation of these findings. These revisions will streamline the presentation of our empirical results, making them more accessible and reader-friendly while avoiding redundancy with figure content. Thank you for your valuable input, and we are committed to improving the clarity and conciseness of our "Empirical Results" section. Please see lines 373-848 in the revised manuscript in blue font.

7. Consider including conclusions that replicate the text previously presented. On the contrary, I recommend including the "Discussion" section, which is completely missing here.

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the inclusion of a "Discussion" section. We understand your suggestion and its importance in providing a more comprehensive analysis of the research findings. We relabel "Section 4: Empirical Results" as "Section 4: Results and Discussions" in lines 373-835 which is duly noted and appreciated. The revised title aligns more accurately with the nature of this work, which is primarily a comprehensive review rather than an experimental study. This adjustment helps clarify the content and methodology employed in this section, enhancing the overall coherence and understanding of the research. Thank you for your valuable input, which contributes to the refinement of this article's structure and clarity.

8. Respect the formal requirements of the journal.

Response: Thanks for your comments. Certainly, we will ensure that our paper adheres to all the formal requirements of the journal. This includes following the guidelines for formatting, referencing, and any other specific requirements outlined by the journal. Thank you for pointing this out, and we will make the necessary adjustments to meet these formal requirements.

Reviewer 5 Report

As the topic is interested, the title sugest rather economic then bibliometric analysis.

The methodological and scientific considerations state following qiestiions:

1. how is it possible that analysing almost 7000 positions in the literature review is presented ond position from 19875 and then next form year 2020s? What about the middletime?

2. is it true (figure 4) that other countries which are not presented in figure 4, do not undertake such nowadays important topic?

3. what does the investigation about authors colaboration (figure 8) and co-citation by source networking (figure 9) mean? what was the aim of this part of such investigation?

This implacates that there is seriuos mistakes in research - the reason and methodology is unclear. The main body is uder the question sign because it is not the base articels anlysis but only cooperation between some authors. There is also no conclusion is it right or wrong.

In that meaning the title shoud be recomposed to not mislead the reader about its content.

Also the literature should be more multinational for such undertaken topic.  

The consclusion(s) also should be developed and there shoudl e ststed what is the real implication for further research, as it is common knowledge that investigated problem is important. It is not possible just to describe the SD concept in few sentences, what exacytly is done.

The article needs serious discussion and consideration then. 

Author Response

Reviewer 5

1. As the topic is interested, the title sugest rather economic then bibliometric analysis.

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the title of the paper. We appreciate your input. After careful consideration, we understand your concern that the current title may suggest a focus primarily on economic analysis rather than the bibliometric approach employed in the study. To address this concern and provide clarity to our readers, we are actively revising the title of the paper. The updated title will explicitly highlight the bibliometric analysis aspect while still conveying the essence of the study. We believe that this adjustment will better represent the content and approach of our research. The new title will be “Renewable Energy Integration for Sustainable Economic Growth: Insights and Challenges via Bibliometric Analysis” in lines 1-2 in the revised manuscript.

The methodological and scientific considerations state following questions:

2. How is it possible that analysing almost 7000 positions in the literature review is presented ond position from 19875 and then next form year 2020s? What about the middle time?

Response: Thanks for your questions, I'm really sorry if I misunderstood the issue you're talking about. If the research data in this paper was collected from all articles published from 1990 to June 2023, then indeed there is no gap in the research period. I apologize for any confusion. To clarify, if you have a specific section or content in the revised manuscript that you'd like me to address or verify, please provide the exact paragraph or portion of the text you are referring to, and I'll be happy to assist you with it.

3. Is it true (figure 4) that other countries which are not presented in Figure 4, do not undertake such nowadays important topic?

Response: Certainly, you are correct in pointing out that the absence of certain countries in Figure 4 does not imply that those countries do not undertake research on the important topic. The selection of countries in Figure 4 is based on the availability of data in the Web of Science database for the specified time frame (1990 to June 2023) and may not comprehensively represent all countries conducting research in the field of renewable energy and economic growth.

It's important to note that the choice of countries included in Figure 4 was determined by the data source's coverage and availability. It does not reflect the global distribution of research on this topic. Research on renewable energy and economic growth is conducted by scholars and institutions worldwide, and this figure is a representation of a subset of countries with data available in the specified database. The intention of Figure 4 in lines 443-447 in the revised manuscript, is to provide a snapshot of research output from select countries with available data rather than to imply the absence of research in other nations. The field of renewable energy and its relationship with economic growth is indeed a global concern, and research in this area is carried out by researchers and institutions in various countries.

4. What does the investigation of authors colaboration (figure 8) and co-citation by source networking (figure 9) mean? what was the aim of this part of such investigation?

Response: Thanks for your questions,

The Author Collaboration (Figure 8) which title changes to Figure 9 in the revised manuscript provides insights into how authors collaborate in the field of renewable energy and economic growth. In this context, "author collaboration" refers to the degree to which different authors co-author papers together. The size of the nodes (representing authors) and the thickness of the lines (representing co-authorship connections) in the network diagram indicate the prominence of authors and the strength of their collaborations. The aim of this part of the investigation is to identify influential authors, research groups, and collaborative networks in the field. Understanding author collaboration helps in recognizing which researchers are actively working together, which can signify important partnerships and interdisciplinary approaches. Please see lines 638-665 in the revised manuscript.

Co-Citation by Source Networking (Figure 9) whose title changes to Figure 10 in the revised manuscript, identifies which sources are frequently cited together in the literature. When multiple papers are co-cited, it suggests that they are related in some way, often indicating a shared theme or topic. The network diagram (Figure 9) illustrates how these co-cited sources are interconnected. The aim of this investigation is to uncover thematic clusters in the literature. The sources within each cluster are likely to be related in subject matter, and this helps in understanding the major themes and topics within the field. Please see lines 669-848 in the revised manuscript.

5. This implicates that there is seriuos mistakes in research - the reason and methodology is unclear. The main body is uder the question sign because it is not the base articels anlysis but only cooperation between some authors. There is also no conclusion is it right or wrong.

Response: We appreciate your feedback and would like to clarify some points regarding the methodology and presentation of results in our study in revised manuscript:

Methodology Clarification: Our study utilizes a comprehensive bibliometric analysis methodology. We collected and analyzed data from a wide range of scholarly articles published between 1990 and June 2023 that are relevant to the intersection of renewable energy and economic growth. This analysis includes various aspects such as author collaboration, co-citation networks, and thematic clustering.

Author Collaboration and Co-Citation: The investigation of author collaboration and co-citation is a fundamental part of bibliometric analysis. It helps identify influential authors, research groups, and research themes within the field. This information is crucial for understanding the scholarly landscape and recognizing key contributors to the literature.

Scope of the Study: Our study primarily focuses on providing insights into the research landscape, key works, influential authors, and emerging themes in the field. While it does not provide a traditional literature review, it offers a valuable perspective on the evolution and structure of research in renewable energy and economic growth. The absence of a traditional literature review section does not imply serious mistakes but rather reflects the chosen approach of presenting insights through bibliometric analysis.

Conclusions: We acknowledge the need for a more explicit conclusion section in our manuscript. In the revised version, we will include a dedicated conclusions section that summarizes the key findings and implications of our bibliometric analysis. This section will provide a clear summary of the insights gained from our research.

6. In that meaning the title shoud be recomposed to not mislead the reader about its content.

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the title of the paper. We appreciate your input. After careful consideration, we understand your concern current title. To address this concern and provide clarity to our readers, the new title will be “Renewable Energy Integration for Sustainable Economic Growth: Insights and Challenges via Bibliometric Analysis” in lines 1-2 in the revised manuscript.

7. Also the literature should be more multinational for such an undertaken topic.  

Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the diversity of the literature in our study. We appreciate your feedback and would like to clarify the scope and focus of our research.

Our study aims to provide a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of scholarly articles relevant to the intersection of renewable energy and economic growth. While our analysis covers a substantial period (1990 to June 2023) and includes a significant number of articles, it primarily depends on the availability of relevant articles in the selected database (Web of Science).

We understand the importance of including research from a multinational perspective. We strive to include articles from diverse geographic regions, but the availability of such articles depends on their publication in the selected database. In our revised manuscript, we will make an effort to highlight the regional aspects of research when discussing key findings, author collaborations, and co-citation networks. Your feedback will help us enhance the multinational perspective in our study. Thank you for your valuable input. All revised sentences mentioned in lines 167-298 in blue font in revised manuscript.

8. The consclusion(s) also should be developed and there shoudl e ststed what is the real implication for further research, as it is common knowledge that investigated problem is important. It is not possible just to describe the SD concept in few sentences, what exacytly is done.

Response: Thank you for your feedback concerning the conclusion and the need for further research implications. We appreciate your insights and will work to improve these aspects in our revised manuscript. In the revised conclusion section, we will provide a more detailed summary of our findings and their practical implications. We will also elaborate on the implications for future research, emphasizing specific areas where additional studies could contribute to a deeper understanding of the sustainable development concept. Your feedback will guide us in enhancing the conclusion section in lines 849-945 in the revised manuscript and ensuring that we address the importance of the investigated problem and its broader implications. Thank you for your valuable input, and we look forward to incorporating these improvements into our manuscript.

9. The article needs serious discussion and consideration then.

Response: We appreciate your feedback and agree that a more in-depth discussion is necessary for our article. In our revised manuscript, we will make sure to provide a more comprehensive and detailed discussion of the research findings, their significance, and their implications. We will also address the areas that require further consideration and provide a more thorough analysis of the topic.

Your input is valuable, and we are committed to enhancing the quality of our article by incorporating these improvements in lines 520-848 in the revised manuscript in blue font. Thank you for highlighting the need for a more rigorous discussion, and we will ensure that this aspect is appropriately addressed in our revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors made a lot of effort to improve the scientific quality of the paper. The contribution still has some minor imperfections, however, it can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

I can state that all my comments were adequately incorporated.

Reviewer 5 Report

The present version of the paper is much more improved than the last one. It concludes comments mostly and upgades it scientific value. As the empirical presentation should be done other way but this presented in the paper is not wrong and it is Author/s decision how to present research.