Combating Climate Change through Network Governance in Singapore’s and Australia’s Air, Land and Water Sectors from 2000 to 2019
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author
Yes, the topics is intestiong and current. However, in opinion of this reviewer, was very difficult follow you redaction. In most of the manuscript, the way of citing makes it difficult to follow the idea, they are mixed up and it is difficult to distinguish between truthful data and interpretations. Some of the references are based on web pages that no longer exist or are uncorroborated data.
On the other hand, a characteristic of the scientific article is the possibility of replicating the methodology and in the opinion of this reviewer, in this case the information of both "the triple helix" and the data to be intersected is ambiguous.
Some notes are found in the manuscript
It is suggested to restructure as a review article
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for the comments. Please kindly find attached my responses to your comments.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, try to emphasize more the originality of your paper.
Try to find another way to present the information from the Figure2. From my point of view, it is not a figure. You could organize that information in a table.
Also, as a reader, I do not see very well the table 3. The second column of the table is above the rest of columns.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for the comments. Please kindly find attached my responses to your comments.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggest changing the type of paper – it is more of a review than an article. There is no original data. The Author uses abundant existing sources instead, giving an interesting insights into Singapore and Australia climate change policies. However, some issues must be resolved.
General comments:
1. Methodology section must be improved. You should describe methodology in your own words, do not use whole paragraphs from other paper (in the form of fig. 2).
2. In the future while citing works with multiple authors (three and more) just list a first one and follow it with ‘et al’, for example ‘Arnell et al. 2015’.
3. Figure and table captions are missing.
4. Tables: you should cite data sources.
5. Sections 6.1-6.9 – You cite information sources in the text so additional indexes in the titles and reference description after the conclusions sections are unnecessary.
Specific comments:
6. Line 89: Please remove ‘(p. 676)’ – page in unnecessary here and further in the text.
7. Line 105: Please remove ‘see’ from the brackets (and further in the text).
8. Lines 164-166: Please rewrite this sentence, some words are repeated and thus it is uneasy to follow “In Singapore, climate change policies often see key policy design and implementation decisions on climate change policies being made by top ministers responsible for climate change in the Singapore national government.”
9. Lines 166-167: “Singapore only has a national government given its geographically small size” – what do you mean here? That there are no local government units? Maybe you should write that it is centralised. You should be more clear.
10. Figure 1: I do not understand this graph. What is the difference between left-hand and right-hand column? What does each of them describe? What do knowledge, innovation and consensus space activities mean? Why are they listed below? What is the difference?
11. Figure 2: Same as above. It is difficult to understand these figures without captions. But this one looks like paragraphs from some other paper. If you use methodology by Yin (2014) you should briefly describe it and place a citation of that paper but not use whole parts of manuscript. You should remove this figure and prepare a correct description of the methodology.
12. Lines 233-234: “policies deemed to be well- and under-performing” By whom? How was it assessed? Or is it just a subjective opinion? It is very important to clarify.
13. Line 243: ‘emphasis mine” – what do you mean by that? Is it a reference?
14. Line 309: Please remove “ from the middle of cited sentence.
15. Lines 323 and further : Please use scientific notation of units, so ‘kWh m3-3’.
16. Line 250: Please specify what kind of emissions.
17. Lines 356-357: Please use ‘NOx’ and ‘CO2’.
18. Table 2: Please remove table’s caption from the first row. Use scientific notation of units (e.g. ‘g km-1’). Remove category markings from columns 2-6 (carbon pollutants) - the first column shows categories so it is enough. So in columns 2-6 keep only ranges or specific values. It will make the table more legible. The last column, 7th row – did you mean ‘SGD’ (instead of ‘SGS’)? Also, you should specify what these categories mean (A1-C2). It could vary depending on the country.
19. Table 3: It should look like table 1 or table 2. Remove shading. Use scientific notation.
20. Line 377: Emissions of what?
21. Line 390: Tonnes of what?
22. Lines 454-455: Please use scientific notation of units.
23. Lines 459: It’s ‘CO2’.
24. Lines 464: Please remove ‘is’.
25. Figure 3 and figure 1 are almost the same, remove one of them. If you change fig. 3, then put it earlier in the text (not in the conclusions section).
26. Conclusions should be shorter. The part below fig. 3 would be enough.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for the comments. Please kindly find attached my responses to your comments.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you so much for your kind corrections; the article is better now. Please revise and follow the edition rules
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your comments.
My edition amendments are reflected in the revised manuscript.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Author
