Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents interesting ideas on a matter of clear scientific and industrial interest, even more so in the current geopolitical situation.

On the other hand, the whole part of the results is confusing and must be simplified and presented more linearly.

So, I recommend that this paper be reconsidered after major revision.

 

1.       “Introduction” paragraph is too long with some parts redundant, so it must be resumed.

2.       Results part has to be simplified and better explained

3.       Conclusionion paragrpah have to be resumed and the true and effective results of the work presented must be highlighted

 

4.       English language has to be improved. 

Author Response

Thank you. find the response in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comments

I tried to understand it but the discussion and conclusions are all very general and hard to follow. Technically, the quality of some figures needs improvements. The paper has a really ambitious title, however, it is difficult to tell how the conclusions or the work can actually help.

 

Specific comments

1.       Abstract, the first half contains too much general knowledge.

2.       Abstract: “The results showed that the consumption of renewable energy has a negative and significant impact on the green economy of the selected countries.” and “Examining these indicators shows that energy production from renewable sources, in addition to meeting energy demand and replacing them with part of the demand for fossil fuels, has positive short-term and long-term economic effects with different contributions.” Are these two sentences presenting controversial ideas? It is really confusing!

3.       Figure 1，what is the difference between “gross effect” and “net effect” ?

4.       Figure 2， looks nice, but is less relevant to the content of this paper?

5.       Table 1, source of data should be cited

6.       At the end of the introduction section, did the authors just present the main conclusion of this study? I think the conclusions should be presented at the end of the paper. The introduction should focus on the necessity of the stud and the originality.

 

7.       Conclusions are very long and difficult to follow.

Author Response

With thanks. Please find the response file in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: The impact of renewable energy on the sustainable development of the economy algorithm of developing countries

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2075100

Journal: Sustainability, section: Environmental Sustainability and Applications,

It is my pleasure to review the manuscript for this esteemed journal. In this manuscript, the authors investigated the impact of renewable energy on the sustainable development of the economy algorithm of developing countries using he method and tools of collecting information and statistical sources that need written documents, electronic information and phishing. The work presented is relevant to the Journal's field, i.e., section: Environmental Sustainability and Applications. The manuscript has got some potential. I would like to congratulate the author for a considerable amount of work that they have done. Especially, the authors contended that energy production from renewable sources, in addition to meeting energy demand and replacing them with part of the demand for fossil fuels, has positive short-term and long-term economic effects with different contributions. This manuscript has provided a new case to better understanding of the impact of renewable energy on the sustainable development of the economy algorithm of developing countries. However, the manuscript needs further improved before to be accepted for publication. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might be helpful of the author to further enhance the quality of the manuscript. Please consider the particular comments listed below.

 

Comment 1: Abstract. The description of research significance/research background/research importance seems too long and needs to be compressed. In addition, it should underscore the scientific value added of your paper in your abstract.

 

Comment 2: section of Introduction. The novelty of this paper should be further justified by highlighting main contributions to the existing literature. This could be clearly presented in the Literature review related work. Please consider please consider citing following papers entitled “Trade protectionism jeopardizes carbon neutrality – Decoupling and breakpoints roles of trade openness”, and entitled “Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: The roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent”, and entitled “Does income inequality reshape the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis? A nonlinear panel data analysis”, and entitled “Uncovering the impact of income inequality and population aging on carbon emission efficiency: An empirical analysis of 139 countries”; and entitled “Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: The effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes”. There has already been a large number of literatures related to the nexus of between energy consumption and economic growth. There is a need to better elaborate the contribution of the work to the existing literature.

 

Comment 3: section of mothod. This section is well-structured and well-organized. However, it would be better to further highlight your improvement of the method and your innovation in methods.

 

Comment 4: section of Results and discussion. This section is also well-structured and well-written. However, it would be better to discuss what your findings are different from the past works, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118200;

 

Comment 5: section of Conclusion. Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

 

Comment 6: There are still some occasional grammar errors through the revised manuscript especially the article ''the'', ''a'' and ''an'' is missing in many places, please make a spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. In addition, some sentences are too long to be easy to read. It is recommended to change to short sentences, which are easier to read.

 

Comment 7: References. Please check the references in the text and the list; You should update the reference.

 

Good luck!

Author Response

With thanks. Please find the response file in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The abstract should also highlight both quantitative as well as qualitative results of the study.

2. Novelty of the work should be highlighted in the last para of introduction.

3. Abbreviations and symbols should be properly explained/full form at first instance and then should be used uniformly.

4. The author is advised to thoroughly check the language and grammar of the manuscript.

5. The authors are advised to improve the formatting of the paper.

6. Conclusion should have quantitative results of the study.

 

Author Response

With thanks. Please find the response file in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the extensive revision work done.

Now the manuscript certainly has a more linear form and therefore easier to read and understand.

There are still some minor errors in the English language that can certainly be improved and the conclusions can be enriched by better contextualizing them in the present scenario and future perspectives.

 

For these reasons I propose to accept the manuscript after a minor revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors worked hard on the revision, and most issues were adequately addressed. Now I think the paper can be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form