Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Lunyou Pei 1,
  • Bing Wang 2 and
  • Xiaoling Liu 1,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Rita Yi Man Li Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

  1. Originality:
  • The paper lacks new and significant information that justifies publication. The concepts and methodologies presented have been previously explored in the literature.
  • The authors should consider incorporating novel aspects or expanding on existing theories to enhance the originality of their work.
  1. Relationship to Literature:
  • The paper demonstrates a limited understanding of the relevant literature. While some sources are cited, there is a lack of comprehensive review and analysis of existing studies.
  • The authors should broaden their literature review to include a wider range of sources, especially recent developments in the field.
  • Significant works seem to have been overlooked, and their inclusion would strengthen the paper's foundation.
  1. Methodology:
  • Why one bridge’s example can generalise to other cases?
  • The paper's argument is built on an appropriate base of theory and concepts. However, the research design is not sufficiently detailed (despite it is too lengthy now), making it challenging to assess the validity of the methods employed.
  • Turn point forms to paragraphs.
  • The authors should provide a more comprehensive description of their research design, including data collection procedures, and statistical analyses employed.

·       More details on optimization is needed based on previous research: Management optimization of electricity system with sustainability enhancement, W Hou, RY Man Li, T Sittihai - Sustainability, 2022

  1. Results:
  • The results are presented adequately, but the analysis lacks depth and clarity. The authors should provide more in-depth interpretation of the results, including statistical significance and practical implications.
  • The conclusions drawn from the results should be more explicitly connected to the research question (not stated in the paper? Please add) and the broader context of the study.
  1. Implications for research, practice, and/or society:
  • The paper fails to clearly identify the implications for research, practice, and/or society. The authors should explicitly state how their findings contribute to the advancement of knowledge, inform practical decision-making, and address societal challenges.
  • The paper lacks discussion on the economic and commercial impact, influence on public policy, and potential effects on society.
  1. Quality of Communication:
  • The introduction should introduce the later sections and the research objectives should be rewritten.
  • Abstract said “Under the background of dual carbon goals,” anybody outside China should not know what is that, as such, please provide a brief description of dual carbon goals “A Study on Public Perceptions of Carbon Neutrality in China: has the Idea of ESG Been Encompassed?, Front. Environ. Sci., 2023, Volume 10 – 2022”
  • The paper contains several citation errors, including missing citations for key claims and insufficient referencing of relevant literature.
  1. Interpretations and Conclusions:
  • Extend the conclusion part by adding Implications for research, practice, and/or society.
  • The interpretations and conclusions drawn in the paper are not adequately supported by the evidence presented. The authors should provide more robust justifications and discuss any limitations or alternative explanations.
  • The research question is not clearly stated in the introduction. The authors should revise the introduction to clearly define the research question and its significance.
  1. Figures/Tables:
  • Some figures and tables lack clear citations or support from the main text. The authors should ensure that all figures and tables are properly referenced and their content is explained in the main text.
  • The captions of figures and tables should be more descriptive and self-explanatory to aid readers' understanding.
  1. Overall Clarity and Relevance:
  • The paper contains unnecessary sections, references, graphics, and tables that do not contribute to the understanding of the main results and key points. The authors should streamline the content and remove any extraneous information.
  • The conclusions and potential impacts of the paper should be clearly stated and directly connected to the research findings.
  • The title adequately represents the content of the paper.
  • The abstract provides a concise summary of the paper, but it could be more accessible and highlight the main results.
  • The keywords accurately reflect the content of the paper.
  • The paper's length is appropriate, but sections could be condensed to improve clarity and focus.
  • The key messages should be condensed further to ensure they are short, accurate, and clear.
  1. Representation of Recent Advances:
  • The author's representation of recent advances in the field is insufficient. The references provided do not adequately cover both historical literature and recent developments.
  • The authors should include more recent studies and highlight their contributions to the topic.
  1. Writing, Organization, Tables, and Figures:
  • The writing in the manuscript needs improvement. The authors should pay attention to sentence structure, clarity of expression, and eliminate grammatical errors.
  • The organization of the paper is unclear, making it challenging to follow the logical flow of ideas. The authors should restructure the paper to improve its organization and coherence.
  • Some tables and figures lack clarity, and their relevance to the main text is unclear. The authors should revise and clarify these visuals to enhance their contribution to the paper.
  1. Interpretation of Results:
  • The author's interpretation of the results is limited and lacks depth. The authors should provide a more comprehensive analysis and discuss the implications of the findings in relation to the research question.
  1. Title, Abstract, and Keywords:
  • The title properly reflects the subject of the paper.
  • The abstract provides a summary of the paper but could be improved for better accessibility and clarity.
  • The keywords accurately reflect the content and should be reviewed for relevance and specificity.
  1. Paper Length and Key Messages:
  • The paper is an appropriate length, but sections could be condensed to improve clarityand focus.
  • The key messages should be further refined to ensure they are concise, accurate, and clear.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Copy edit is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: In order to reduce carbon emissions, the Chinese government has put forward the dual carbon targets, which aim to peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.In this context,…what is happening in China is not of anybody interest for outside world. What is the originality of this paper and gap of research it intends to state, should be stated though.first maintenance time of 90 scores? What is this? Line 23, maintenance cost of 907,400 yuan, the exact figure of price is not needed in abstract.

 

1. Originality: It is unclear from the provided information whether the paper contains new and significant information. The description of the paper does not explicitly mention any novel contributions or innovations. It would be beneficial for the authors to clearly state the originality of their work.

 

2. Relationship to Literature: The paper should demonstrate an understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite appropriate sources. It is important to provide a comprehensive review of existing work and acknowledge any significant contributions in the field. The title is Optimization and we expect to include more optimization literatures inside like the papers: A bi-objective optimization model for the medical supplies' simultaneous pickup and delivery with drones, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2022 and Management optimization of electricity system with sustainability enhancement, Sustainability, 2022

 

3. Methodology: The methodology should be based on an appropriate theoretical foundation and well-designed research or intellectual work. The description of the paper mentions the use of a degradation model and a decision-making method, but further details are needed to assess the appropriateness of the methodology.

 

4. Results: The results should be presented clearly and analyzed appropriately. It is important for the authors to provide a clear description of the results and their significance.

 

5. Implications for research, practice, and/or society: The paper should clearly identify the implications of the research for research, practice, and/or society. The authors should discuss how their work bridges the gap between theory and practice and highlight the potential impact on various stakeholders. The provided information does not provide insights into the implications of the research.

 

6. Quality of Communication: The paper should be written clearly and concisely, using technical language appropriate for the field. Attention should be paid to sentence structure, jargon use, and clarity of expression.  (Life Cycle Assessment), abbreviation should be put inside. Figure 1 needs higher resolution.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

lines 128-140 can be shortened a bit.

Copy edit the title of the paper.

Lines 11-15 can be shortened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Polish english.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx