Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, Congratulations on the research. Very interesting insights.

The research is well-structured, logical and well-developed. I have no comments to add to improve it. Maybe letter (size) can be replaced in some of the presented tables.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article treats a very actual subject. 

More limitations should be added at subchapter 3.5. Conclusions state more limitations. 

Some citations are strangely introduced into the text, the text seems to rather contain explanations given by the authors than a cited information. Examples: [34], [12], [48-50], [4,45–47,51], [52,53], [54-57], [20,58-60], ..., [29,88–90], etc. Please make sure that citations are appropriate. 

It is useful to compare the obtained results with similar analysis from the literature. If any unexpected or contradictory results emerged during the study, the Discussion section provides possible explanations or hypotheses to account for them. Also, this section discusses the broader implications of the findings and their relevance to the field or to practical applications.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the appended file.

A list of strengths is provided.

The list of defects is formulated.

Suggestions for improvements are given.

It is a moderately interesting exercise.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be published in the actual format.