Kosovo’s Financial and Economic Benefits from Natural Gas Investment Compared to the Western Balkans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-The similarity rate is 31% and above the journal's acceptable threshold of 20%. This raises concerns about originality and academic integrity. Authors must rewrite or paraphrase sections that may have been copied or too closely adapted from other sources. All borrowed ideas must be properly cited. Direct quotes should be minimal and clearly marked.

2- The sentence structure is unclear in abstract. It is hard to extract key findings and methods.

3- The financial model used is overly simplistic and lacks rigorous empirical or econometric analysis.

4- No clear explanation of data sources, sample size, or statistical validation of claims (e.g., how 60 million euros in savings are calculated, or job multipliers).

5- Equations presented are not academically rigorous and seem ad hoc or illustrative rather than empirically validated.

6- Despite the title referencing Kazakhstan, the comparative analysis is superficial. The manuscript mostly lists Kazakhstan’s energy figures without critically analyzing how these lessons can translate to Kosovo. Please improve the comparative framework. Apply a SWOT or cost-benefit analysis between both countries’ energy profiles and policy readiness.

7- In section 5.2, The multipliers are assumed with no reference or basis (10 jobs/million EUR).

8- Section 7 is largely descriptive; lacks data from IPCC or credible environmental models.

9- The conclusion section is overgeneralized. It repeats points from earlier sections without adding new analytical depth.

10- Several mathematical expressions are awkward or poorly formatted. A professional English language and academic editing service is highly recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript suffers from poor syntax, unclear sentences, and incorrect word usage throughout (e.g., “solar gas” likely meant to be “natural gas”). 

Author Response

Dear Sir

We have reviewed our paper once again and corrected it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to apologize with the authors for the delay in producing my refereeing report.

There is an overall problem with the current draft. Having gained first-hand, policy-relevant experience, I can say that this is clearly a policy report - and one that does not make use of the best available analytical tools. In other words, this is not a scientific paper.

There is no clearly defined goal within a clearly defined scientific field of investigation. If the goal is to come up with scenario analysis in a specific context, then the article should focus on the scenario analysis only. And it should develop/use specific analytical tools for that. If the goal is to " support and guide the main government authorities as well as 17
other interested parties to prepare for the necessary legal procedures related to the use of gas by ffuture consumers in Kosovo", then a scenario analysis may not be enough - and other methods of investigation should be used for that as well. This is to say that the authors should pursue only one goal and remove all the rest from the draft.

Let us assume that a scenario analysis - regardless of the specific context - is truly of interest for the authors. A reduced-form model like the one presented in line 113 may be used as guidance, but only on one condition: if it employed to build intuitition for an appropriate simulation framework. Let it be clear: the authors need to make sure that the reader can understand what have written.

The economic implications from the simualtion analysis should be spelled out to their full extent. Statements such as "Total Savings = 200 euros/year × 300,000 = 60,000,000 euros/year" mean nothing. Is 200 euros/year "a lot", "little", "enough"... and based on what?

My suggestion would be: use some structural energy production model together with an e structural l energy consumption model where a measure of welfare can be called upon. Then estimate these two buildings blocks and use the results to carry out a welfare analysis. If the authors do no use structural models, it becomes hard to draw any conclusion that may have a scientific value.

Some minor points.

Pictures from gas fields and all the like can be removed. Only a purely economic discussion of relevant aspects for simulation analysis should be left in the draft.

It is fine to provide a qualititative discussion about possible improvements in standards of living in Kosovo. But the authors need to clarify how that relates to a simulation analysis.

Finally, short sentences that are cast away from paragraphs make no sense. My suggestion is to write up a text that is more organic and understandable to the overall readership.

Author Response

Dear
we have looked at your comments and have revised the paper once again and have also changed the title.
And in the paper we have changed and reflected on your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review examines the potential advantages of investing in natural gas infrastructure in Kosovo, using Kazakhstan as a comparative paradigm. This subject is both pertinent and highly relevant, as it is located at the confluence of economic sustainability, energy transition, and regional development in the Western Balkans. It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive assessment of Kosovo's transition from coal in light of the EU's Green Agenda and the global initiative to reduce carbon emissions. Nevertheless, the paper's current state necessitates significant revision before it can be considered for publication, despite its commendable objectives. The subsequent assessment delineates the strengths and, more crucially, the areas that necessitate substantial enhancement.

Coherence and Substantive Content

The manuscript's structural disorganization and lack of analytical coherence are the most pressing concerns. Frequent digressions, the repetition of ideas, and abrupt transitions between technical content, general observations, and policy statements all impede the narrative flow. The reader's capacity to critically engage with the primary argument is impeded by the absence of a clearly articulated research question or hypothesis. A concise formulation of the problem, a rigorous analytical model, and a clearly delineated set of results and implications should serve as the foundation of a journal article in the field of sustainability. In contrast, the present manuscript lacks a cohesive analytical strand, oscillating between description and prescription.

In order to resolve this matter, the authors must reorganize the manuscript in accordance with the standard academic format, which includes an Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. The examination of Kazakhstan's energy profile, while potentially beneficial, should be conducted in a comparative manner rather than as a parallel narrative. Additionally, the comparative approach would be fortified by a more focused statement that elucidates the reasons why Kazakhstan is a suitable benchmark for Kosovo.

Data Integrity and Methodology

The methodology is inadequately described and, when it is present, lacks profundity and transparency. The authors do not specify the theoretical basis or empirical model that underlie their analysis, despite the fact that the paper purports to apply a "financial module." Rather than the results of a systematic model that has been subjected to assumptions, boundary conditions, or sensitivity testing, financial indicators such as cost comparisons, investment returns, and CO₂ savings are presented as numerical illustrations. Additionally, there is a lack of clarity regarding the reliability of statistical data and the origins of the data. For example, when estimates of household savings and emission reductions are provided, the reader is left to speculate about the methods by which these figures were derived, the temporal or spatial scope they represent, and whether they accurately reflect actual market conditions.

The authors should incorporate a recognized economic evaluation framework, such as Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), or Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), and provide the accompanying assumptions, datasets, and discount rates used in order to improve. Similarly, the savings calculations for households and macroeconomic indicators (GDP growth, tax revenue, job creation) should be based on referenced national statistics and appropriately cited.

Academic Path and Language

The manuscript is substantially handicapped by pervasive linguistic deficiencies that impede comprehension. The professionalism and legibility of the work are diminished by grammar errors, awkward sentence constructions, and inconsistent terminology. Furthermore, technical terms are frequently misused or inadequately articulated, and the manuscript contains LaTeX commands (e.g., \{Savings}) that are scattered throughout the text, suggesting that the manuscript was not properly formatted prior to submission.

It is strongly advised that the authors solicit professional language editing from an academic editor who is either a native or fluent English speaker. Further, the overall scholastic presentation will be enhanced by adopting a formal academic tone, which involves refraining from using colloquial expressions and ensuring that referencing is consistent.

Sustainability and Relevance of Policy Framing

The paper fails to critically engage with the broader policy context, despite its reference to a variety of sustainability dimensions, including economic, environmental, and social ones. The authors mention the Energy Community Treaty, the EU's Green Deal, and carbon pricing; however, these are not systematically incorporated into the analysis. Furthermore, the paper fails to critically evaluate the risks of fossil fuel lock-in, potential stranded assets, or the alignment of gas infrastructure investments with long-term decarbonization pathways, despite the fact that natural gas is referred to as a "transition fuel."

Engaging with the expanding literature on post-fossil energy systems, which encompasses the socioeconomic trade-offs of infrastructural investments, the role of hydrogen, and the interplay between renewables and gas, would be necessary to achieve a more equitable treatment. Moreover, the paper lacks stakeholder perspectives, notably those from Kosovo's civil society, private sector, and international donors, which would significantly enhance its policy relevance.

Conclusion and Suggestion

In conclusion, the manuscript addresses a critical issue: the transition from coal to a more sustainable energy system in Kosovo, with natural gas as a potential intermediary. Nevertheless, the work is deficient in a number of critical areas, including methodological rigor, structural organization, academic writing, and analytical profundity. In order to meet the publication standards of a journal such as Sustainability, the manuscript must undergo a significant amount of revision. This encompasses a more lucid conceptual framework, well-articulated research objectives, a methodology that is defended, a more robust engagement with data, and enhanced scholarly communication.

Consequently, I suggest that a substantial revision be implemented. Professional editing and methodological guidance are provided to assist the authors in refocusing their work. This manuscript could be a valuable addition to the regional conversation on sustainable development and energy transition if it is revised to solve these deficiencies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English can be improved in the idea that the readers should understand the meaning and not try to guess the idea.

Author Response

Dear
We have reflected on your comments and have changed both the title and the content where we thought they were offensive to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors revised the paper well according to my requests.

Author Response

Comments 1: Authors revised the paper well according to my requests.

Response 1: Ok sir thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I am sympathetic with the overall idea - from an intuitive point of view - presented in the draft. The problem lies in the line of reasoning that is used.

I would still invite the authors to remove all the pictures from the draft. I understand what they try to achieve with them, but they happen to add little to the discussion presented in the paper.

The financial 'module' is a 'reduced-form energy cost model'. It is important the authors state it clearly. The implications for households can only be based on a comparison between total energy costs that the Kosovian population currently faces with respect to those that would emerge under a more widespread use of natural gas. In this regards, a statement such as:

"we can see that a decrease in energy cost by 0.02 USD/kWh (from 0.12 to 0.10 182
USD/kWh) results in a 80 USD reduction in the total annual energy cost for the household"

cannot truly point to a desirability for natural gas consumption in Kosovo per se. To be clear, is 80USD 'a lot' or 'little' for Kosovian households? How much do they currently spend for energy? And how large is GDP per household in Kosovo (e.g. for argument's sake, if annual GDP per capita is 1000USD, then an 80USD saving can be quite much).

In section 5.1, the GDP impact arising from real investment in gas distribution depends on the demand multiplier of real investment. Now, question is: how large is that? In section 5.2, what empirical evidence supports the proposition for which 1mil USD generates 10 jobs? Is that based on worldwide average, or empirical estimates produced by the authors?

Finally, your draft still states that there are net benefits from a widespread use of natural gas in Kosovo. What about the social costs? After all, you should think about comparing costs of adoption against the benefits of adoption -- instead of comparing costs of no adoption with the benefits of adoption.

I understand this is a lot to take in. But you have submitted your paper to an academic journal whose scope goes beyond mere 'policy' work -- and this comes from something who spent quite a few years working at more than one central bank.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor fixes are still needed to the language. An example:

"Climate benefits, if we use natural gas as an energy source"

I see no need to use the 'we' subject in this context.

Author Response

Comment 1:There is an overall problem with the current draft. Having gained first-hand, policy-relevant experience, I can say that this is clearly a policy report - and one that does not make use of the best available analytical tools. In other words, this is not a scientific paper.

Comment from author: 

Regarding the latest Draft that we are sending, it has been reviewed, improved and I can state that this paper aims to analyze the financial, economic and ecological benefits that investing in natural gas in energy production can bring to Kosovo, comparing it with the practices and benefits of other Western Balkan countries. This can easily be seen in Chapter 1. Introduction. Always comparing the benefits that Kosovo has compared to other Western Balkan countries. And almost in the entire paper in four colors are the changes of this draft in relation to the previous draft.

Comment 2: There is no clearly defined goal within a clearly defined scientific field of investigation. If the goal is to come up with scenario analysis in a specific context, then the article should focus on the scenario analysis only. And it should develop/use specific analytical tools for that. If the goal is to " support and guide the main government authorities as well as 17 other interested parties to prepare for the necessary legal procedures related to the use of gas by ffuture consumers in Kosovo", then a scenario analysis may not be enough - and other methods of investigation should be used for that as well. This is to say that the authors should pursue only one goal and remove all the rest from the draft.

Comment from author: 

The main purpose of the paper is to analyze the financial, economic and ecological benefits that investing in natural gas in energy production can bring to Kosovo, comparing it with the practices and benefits of other Western Balkan countries. And this would help, guide the Government of the Republic of Kosovo and other stakeholders to focus the energy strategy to prepare the necessary legal procedures regarding the use of gas by future consumers in Kosovo. As the main tool, comparative methods with the Western Balkan countries and their strategies were used.

Comment 3: Let us assume that a scenario analysis - regardless of the specific context - is truly of interest to the authors. A reduced-form model like the one presented in line 113 may be used as guidance, but only on one condition: if it is employed to build intuition for an appropriate simulation framework. Let it be clear: the authors need to make sure that the reader can understand what they have written.

Comment from author:  

The document addresses aspects such as energy efficiency, opportunities for diversification of energy sources, as well as the impact of potential investments on economic and environmental development. This analysis will provide a deeper understanding of how this investment could impact energy development in Kosovo, which could impact overall economic development. Scenario analysis, a model, was presented in Chapter 3. Research methodology and there we elaborated and treated the model on its importance and financial impact.

Comment 4: 

The economic implications from the simulation analysis should be spelled out to their full extent. Statements such as "Total Savings = 200 euros/year × 300,000 = 60,000,000 euros/year" mean nothing. Is 200 euros/year "a lot", "little", "enough"... and based on what? My suggestion would be using some structural energy production model together with an e structural l energy consumption model where a measure of welfare can be called upon. Then estimate these two buildings blocks and use the results to carry out a welfare analysis. If the authors do not use structural models, it becomes hard to draw any conclusion that may have a scientific value.

Comment from author:    

The economic implications from the simulation analysis in chapter 3 and subchapter 3.3 Savings in Energy Costs for Consumers are in blue. We have taken your suggestions into account and have improved the economic implications and analyzed them in more depth. The changes from the first draft are in blue.

Comment 5: Pictures from gas fields and all the like can be removed. Only a purely economic discussion of relevant aspects for simulation analysis should be left in the draft.

Comment from author:  

Ok. We thought the photos from the gas fields and all the like would enrich the work, but if you insist, we will remove them.

Comment 6: It is fine to provide a qualitative discussion about possible improvements in standards of living in Kosovo. But the authors need to clarify how that relates to a simulation analysis.

Comment from author:  Regarding the issue you are raising, I thought we had discussed it in Chapter 8. Results on the importance of natural gas investment, there you have the changes and adjustments in blue.

Comment 7: Finally, short sentences that are cast away from paragraphs make no sense. My suggestion is to write up a text that is more organic and understandable to the overall readership.

Comment from author: 

Finally, short sentences that are removed from paragraphs do not make sense. My suggestion is to write a text that is more organic and understandable to the general reader. If you do not insist, then we remove the abbreviations if you have thought of them. We have placed them in such a way that the work is as accessible and accepted as possible by potential readers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper must have a better build up, because the following criteria or not met:

• The scientific depth is relatively modest. Much of the work is descriptive and based on simple calculations (basic savings formulas, investment job multipliers) rather than original modeling or advanced empirical analysis.

• There are no original datasets, no econometric models, no technical simulations, or policy modeling, which are usually expected in Sustainability research articles.

In its current form it is not ready for publication in Sustainability, because it needs major revisions, as follows:

• Rewrite English carefully (preferably by a native speaker or professional editing service).

• Deepen the methodological rigor (more robust financial modeling, case studies, sensitivity analyses).

• Add comparative benchmarks with other transition economies.

• Improve tables, figures, and structure.

• Explicitly state limitations and discuss uncertainties.

• Reduce general knowledge descriptions and focus more on Kosovo-specific findings.

Then, it could be resubmitted either to Sustainability or perhaps to a regional journal on energy policy or sustainable development if a quicker publication is desired.

Author Response

Comments 1: Are      the       research           design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Response 1: 

Variables used in the financial module

The treatment of the case has to do with a general indicator that is used to perform an analysis of the financial model of production, energy consumption, according to the regulated price and the price of energy in the market for the period January - December 2023. These variables will compare it with the price of natural gas, household consumption and profit in the financial aspect.

Let's take a closer look at the variables used and the indices applied in their calculation.

Adjusted Price Change Index According to the Market and the Stock Exchange = APCAMSE, obtained by using the general formula.

APCAMSE = QP x AP = TRAAP – QP x PAE = TIAS

QP      = Quantity Produced

AP       = Adjusted Price

TRAAP = Total Revenue According to the Adjusted Price

PAE     = Price According to the Exchange

TIAS     = Total income according to the Stock Exchange CVAPE = Change between input values, according to the adjusted price and as-after the exchange.

 

Comments 2: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Response 2:  We have received information from all responsible institutions and have created our arguments as we have presented them and they are real, we did not want to modify and present something unreal.

 

Comments 3: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Response 3: Perhaps this material could be further elaborated, and we have done our best to present the empirical research clearly and concisely, and we think we have achieved this.

Comments 4: Is the article adequately referenced?

Response 4:  All references are included and match the paper, I don't understand why you point out that they are not adequate.

Comments 5: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Response 5: The conclusion is fully supported by the results presented in our paper, perhaps in the future we can expand the territory for data comparison and they can be presented even more clearly and a clearer picture can be seen.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Kosovo’s Financial and Economic Benefits from Natural Gas Investment, Compared to the Western Balkans" investigates the potential economic, financial, and environmental gains that could arise from shifting Kosovo’s energy production from coal-based sources to natural gas. This topic is timely and pertinent, especially considering the regional aspirations of Western Balkan countries toward EU integration, and the broader context of the EU’s Green Deal and the push for decarbonization across Europe.

The study aims to contribute to the understanding of energy transition pathways in small economies by evaluating how natural gas could offer Kosovo a more cost-efficient, environmentally sustainable, and geopolitically viable source of energy. This relevance makes the paper suitable in principle for Sustainability, a journal that emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development. However, upon closer examination, the manuscript currently falls short in several essential areas that would be required for publication in a top-tier academic journal.

First, the paper selects an under-researched yet strategically important case—Kosovo—and situates it within the Western Balkans region. This geographical focus adds value by filling an empirical gap, especially in the literature related to Southeast Europe’s energy security and infrastructure development. The authors present a range of comparative statistics regarding electricity consumption, production costs, environmental impact (CO₂ emissions), and potential household-level savings. These are paired with simple cost models to estimate potential GDP contributions and job creation if investments in natural gas are undertaken.

Furthermore, the manuscript clearly supports its policy-oriented recommendations with quantitative approximations. For example, the estimated 500,000 tons reduction in annual CO₂ emissions from switching to natural gas, or the projection that a €100 million investment would generate approximately 1,000 jobs, are illustrative figures that policymakers can easily understand and use in forward-looking energy strategies.

Despite its strengths, the paper lacks methodological rigor. The authors rely on what is termed a “financial module,” but this term is neither defined nor underpinned by academic modeling practices. The financial analysis presented is largely based on linear, deterministic cost savings formulas, with no sensitivity analysis, no risk assessment, and no validation against historical data. Furthermore, there is a conflation between financial modeling and energy policy forecasting; the absence of a formal framework—such as input-output analysis, computable general equilibrium models, or cost-benefit analysis—limits the academic credibility of the conclusions drawn.

Additionally, the comparative analysis with other Western Balkan countries is not methodologically substantiated. While the paper includes consumption data from the region, it does not normalize this data (e.g., per capita or per unit of GDP) or control for differing infrastructure baselines, regulatory frameworks, or stages of energy diversification. Consequently, while regional comparisons are offered, they do not meet the standard expected of comparative sustainability assessments.

The paper also underutilizes the vast literature available on energy transition, gas infrastructure investments, and the fossil fuel phase-out debate. While some policy documents and reports are cited, few peer-reviewed academic sources are engaged to frame the argument. This results in a discussion that is largely descriptive rather than analytical.

For instance, the dual role of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” and a potential barrier to long-term decarbonization is not critically explored. The manuscript advocates strongly for natural gas investments without interrogating the risks of stranded assets, dependency on external gas suppliers, or the lock-in effect that may delay renewables deployment. Moreover, the environmental analysis underplays methane leakage from gas infrastructure, which could significantly reduce the net climate benefits cited.

The manuscript would benefit greatly from thorough language editing. At times, the text is repetitive, grammatically inconsistent, or unclear. Phrases such as “solar gas,” “cost lowers the life of citizens,” or “the turbines are causing the death of thousands of birds” are imprecise and detract from the paper’s academic tone. Additionally, there is a lack of structured argumentation. For instance, key findings are scattered across various sections rather than synthesized in a coherent “Results and Discussion” segment.

Figures and tables, while present, are not always labeled clearly, and some quantitative values are given without indicating sources or underlying assumptions. Visual elements such as graphs could enhance the paper’s accessibility, particularly when presenting household-level savings or energy sector contributions to GDP.

Suitability for Sustainability Journal

The MDPI journal Sustainability calls for well-researched, policy-relevant, and analytically grounded work that advances our understanding of sustainable systems. While the paper’s topic aligns well with these goals, its current form does not meet the methodological or analytical standards typically expected by the journal.

To move toward publishability, the paper should:

• Strengthen its methodological base with established economic modeling tools.
• Improve engagement with current literature in energy economics and sustainability transitions.
• Include critical perspectives on natural gas as a transition fuel, incorporating risk and uncertainty analysis.
• Undergo substantial editing for clarity, grammar, and structure.

 

In conclusion, the manuscript makes a valuable attempt to explore how natural gas could enhance Kosovo’s energy and economic stability. Its regional focus and policy orientation offer promising starting points. However, to qualify for publication in a journal like Sustainability, the paper requires major revisions. With enhanced methodological rigor, deeper theoretical engagement, and improved writing, it could evolve into a meaningful contribution to the literature on energy transition in emerging economies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper follows a logical structure, progressing from context and data to projections and conclusions. However, the writing is often redundant and lacks precision. Examples include:

• Frequent repetition of arguments (e.g., cost savings and CO₂ reductions are discussed in multiple sections).
• Informal or grammatically incorrect formulations: e.g., "cost lowers the life of citizens" or "solar gas."
• Sections like “Improving the Standard of Living” are anecdotal and could benefit from more empirical grounding.

Editing by a native English speaker or professional proofreader is strongly recommended before publication.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors;

Dear sir, 

Dear
We have taken all your comments and suggestions into consideration and have adapted the paper to your requirements, we have conducted the analysis with three methods: Input-Output (I-O) Analysis, Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Models and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).
All changes are in blue and we have completely and once again adjusted the paper.
All your comments have been taken into consideration and we have prepared the paper that meets the level to be published in your journal.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions because they have helped us to increase the quality of our paper.