Energy Consumption and Environmental Quality in Africa: Does Energy Efficiency Make Any Difference?†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting paper. Suggested changes on Figures 1 and 2--some of the numbers at the top of bars in tables are a bit difficult tor read.
Author Response
Thank for your reviews and see attached the responses
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
After getting familiar with the reading- matter of the reviewed article, I state the following:
1. The article presents research on:
- energy consumption (including the subcomponents of the renewable and non-renewable energy) and energy efficiency on greenhouse gas emissions in Africa,
- the contingency effect of energy efficiency in the energy consumption-environmental sustainability relationship.
2. The problem under consideration is very difficult and complex. The research covered the years 2000-2020 for 23 African countries (due to data availability).
3. The analysis of the obtained results was carried out very well.
4. The presented issue is very important because society must be aware that the concept of sustainable development remains one of the greatest challenges in the world.
5. In order to facilitate the reading of the article by the readers, authors should include at the beginning of the article a list of abbreviations used.
6. The article in its current form may be published in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please attached are the responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper investigates the role of energy consumption (renewable and non-renewable) and energy efficiency in reducing energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in African countries. The topic is interesting, and the manuscript is well articulated using a robust econometric approach. Overall, paper quality can be improved and acceptable; however, the author(s) need to revise the manuscript before it can be considered for publication. The following revisions should be considered for improving the manuscript:
1. The author(s) has used environmental performance in the title and proxied it by greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 emissions, and N2O emissions described in the materials and methods section. However, these are not environmental performance indicators but the environmental quality or degradation indicators. Reducing these emissions can be one of the several indicators of environmental performance.
2. AfCFTA is considered one of the main keywords, which is briefly explained in the introduction and is not the main focus of the study.
3. Although the introduction is well articulated, this section lacks flow, and multiple references are put together without proper explanation. It seems many references are unnecessarily cited.
4. The research gap and contribution of the study can be explained better, whereby the major contribution of the study is not well defined in the current form of the manuscript.
5. In the literature review section, the author(s) have discussed both the theoretical and empirical aspects surrounding the topic, which is highly appreciated; however, some changes will further enhance the structure of the paper. In my observation, too many papers have been unnecessarily cited, and the study's context requires more specific and relevant literature. Please update it by removing unnecessary references and including the most recent relevant articles in the literature section. The following literature may help the author(s) to improve this section.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.05.016,
6. Improve the summary paragraph of the literature review section on page 7, where the author(s) mentioned, "The review of the literature so far shows that the energy-energy efficiency relationship has not received attention". However, this is not analyzed and focused on in this study, but energy-environment and energy efficiency-environment is the major objective of the study.
7. In section 3.1 Data, it is mentioned that the study is based on microdata; however, in the abstract and conclusion, it is stated that the author(s) had used macro data.
8. The data section 3.1 and Table 1 about the description of variables and data clearly explained and stated that the author(s) had used energy consumption data. However, in Table 3 of the descriptive statistics, energy supply is used. These are two different indicators. Why?
9. In the analysis, somewhere, non-renewable energy consumption is used, and somewhere fossil fuel consumption is used. The names of all the variables used should be exactly the same as it is explained and named in the data section. Similarly, the symbol used for each variable should be similar, as provided in Table 1 throughout the manuscript. For example, if ee is used or energy efficiency, it should be followed in subsequent steps, whereas EE is used in the analysis (explaination and tables). Correct such mistakes for all variables.
10. The study's conclusion should be improved, where it is necessary to suggest real policy recommendations and constructive solutions for the possible problems. Therefore, authors should increase policy recommendations aimed at articulating policy decisions based on the findings of the variables of interest.
11. The limitations and possible future research directions should be interpreted at the end of the manuscript so that researchers interested in this important topic can conduct follow-up studies.
12. There are several grammatical and sentence structure mistakes throughout the manuscript. The author(s) rephrased some words, decreasing the English language standards. For example, "lacuna" is used instead of the gap, "appreciated" instead of measured and many other words. While rephrasing or using a synonym for any word, keep in mind the context it is used so that it does not damage the quality of the language. Overall, the quality of English used in this study requires extensive revision.
13. The author(s) have included many unnecessary citations and bombarded many sentences with multiple citations at the end o sentences across the introduction, literature review, methodology and discussion; adding multiple citations to a sentence does not improve its worth. This has increased the number of references; please include more specific and relevant studies only.
14. There are mistakes in the in-text citations. Correct them throughout the manuscript by following the journal guidelines for citations and references. Remember that the start of the sentence must include the name of the author(s). See the following paper as a reference for correcting the in-text citations.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041625
15. The last paragraph on page 19, starting with On the contrary and ending with climate change challenges follows different fonts.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Attached are the responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I have read the revised manuscript carefully. The authors did not take the comments seriously and ignored most of the things that needed correction. My decision is the same as before until the authors make the correction I highlighted. For example;
1. The authors ignored my first comment and did not respond to it: "The author(s) has used environmental performance in the title and proxied it by greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 emissions, and N2O emissions described in the materials and methods section. However, these are not environmental performance indicators but the environmental quality or degradation indicators, and reducing these emissions can be one of the several indicators of environmental performance."
2. The authors said that the flow and relevant explanation had been added in the introduction, but they have not modified it, and just three or four words are red highlighted only. I suggest that contribution to the literature must be improved in the introduction.
3. I still believe that the authors have made unnecessary citations that need to be corrected.
4. The authors are again advised to update the literature review according to my previous comments. The literature gap paragraph still needs improvement.
5. Please follow Table 1 for the names of variables and abbreviations of those variables throughout the manuscript. I had highlighted a few before and suggested correcting them throughout the manuscript, and the authors have just corrected those I highlighted and left all others unchanged. This is a lazy approach to review. In Table 3, there is still a renewable energy supply, and tables 6, 7, and 8 include fossil fuel consumption still not corrected to non-renewable energy as is described in table 1. The abbreviation for energy efficiency still needs to be corrected according to Table 1 in the analysis section, both text, and Tables.
6. The paper has not put forward any specific policy for these countries based on their research study. Everyone knows that improving energy efficiency is necessary to cope with environmental hazards. How to improve energy efficiency is the actual suggestion the authors should provide; just mentioning that policy should be aimed at improving energy efficiency is not enough. Similarly, provide policy suggestions on how these countries can improve renewable energy.
7. The authors have changed Lacuna in one instance and left it unchanged in another instance. Similar is the case with multiple other words for which the authors used the wrong synonym according to the context. The authors should search for it in the manuscript and get help from proofreading by an expert.
8. The authors did not correct the citation style, as I have provided them with the paper for reference. Once again, I am providing the following paper to correct the in-text citation. Remember that the start of the sentence citation must include the name of the author(s).
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1625
Author Response
Thank you for your reviews and comments. We appreciate your efforts and time to help reform the paper.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has improved, and I suggest it can be accepted in its current form.
Best of luck to the author(s).
Author Response
We have work on the references extensively
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
