Pathways to Carbon Neutrality: Innovations in Climate Action and Sustainable Energy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides an extensive literature-based overview of renewable-energy pathways toward carbon neutrality. The structure is clear and the language generally fluent; however, several sections present descriptive compilations rather than analytical synthesis.

 

My comments/recommendations (C/R)

 

C/R 1. Lines 13-40: The Abstract mixes factual review sentences (efficiency of solar panels has increased from 10 % to 25 %) with generic claims (society can progress towards carbon neutrality) lacking poofs in the manuscript. It should be supported by verifiable sources.

 

C/R 1.The Abstract promises “bibliometric analysis” but contains no mention of data set size, time range, or indicators. This creates a methodological gap between the abstracted aims and the actual content.

 

C/R 3.Lines 64-68: References to 2023-2024 IEA data are reported, yet no explicit citation list is provided. The paper should include the corresponding reference numbers in the text.

 

C/R 4.Lines 93-0907: The text states “wind turbines produce three times more energy than those of the 2000s”; a comparative reference or numerical basis is needed.

 

C/R 5. Line 117 (recorded a weight of 55 % in renewable energy in 2024) repeats the claim from the abstract but lacks citation, IEA Renewables 2024 report should be referenced.

 

C/R 6. In the section describing the conversion of municipal solid waste into energy through thermochemical and biochemical technologies (lines 186-190), the overview would benefit from a broader contextualization of thermochemical processes. In particular, the authors may wish to refer to studies that discuss modern way for intensification in gasification systems, such as (doi:10.33271/mining17.03.067), which provides a critical review of gas generation enhancement methods during underground coal gasification.

 

C/R 7. Lines 217-285 (liquid biofuels), why do not add short discussion of chemistry

 

C/R 8. Lines 372-511: Excellent literature coverage, but the section reads as an annotated bibliography. There is minimal critical evaluation of opposing findings. Please add comparative synthesis explaining why results diverge

 

C/R 9. The IoT-related paragraphs (622-646) could be merged and summarized to reduce redundancy.

 

C/R 10. Lines 665-823: The section gives many national examples. It is very important to be correct.

 

C/R 11. Paragraphs 714-737 on social acceptance are strong; however, mix between “study 118” and narrative text creates confusion. Clarify which results belong to which source.

 

C/R 12. Lines 807-809, environmental impacts only briefly mentioned. Why do not provide quantitative note?

 

C/R 13. In your manuscript, the discussion of sustainable approaches to resource utilization and renewable energy development is well-structured. At the same time, you might consider whether a broader perspective on sustainability in extractive industries could enrich this part. For example, in paper “A new concept for complex mining of mineral raw material resources from DTEK coal mines based on sustainable development and ESG strategy” a new concept integrating ESG principles and sustainable-development strategies within coal-mine closure. How do you see the relationship between the renewable-energy pathways presented in your work and the integrated sustainability framework suggested in that study?

 

C/R 14. Important issue is about bibliometric and PRISMA methodology. - No dedicated section provides search database (Scopus, WoS, Google.), timeframe, or exclusion criteria.

 

C/R 15. Finally, the manuscript demonstrates commendable effort and wide reading but presently functions as a descriptive compilation rather than a systematic analytical review. Nevertheless, after careful revision this manuscript will be recommended for publication from my side.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your improving recommendations!

We implemented your recommendations in the paper by highlighting them in yellow and inserting a comment with the code R1-Cn, where R1 represents Reviewer 1 and n is the number of your comment C (from C1 to C14).

Thank you!

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title "Review Pathways to Carbon Neutrality: Innovations in Climate Action and Sustainable Energy" implies a systematic and forward-looking analysis of decarbonization routes. However, the manuscript reads as a bibliometric survey of six renewable-energy domains for 2018-2025 rather than a critical synthesis of actionable pathways. Please explicitly frame the study as a "bibliometric perspective" in both the Introduction and Conclusion, or alternatively supplement the quantitative findings with an integrated, multidimensional (technology–economy–policy–society) pathway exercise that matches the ambition of the title.
2. The co-occurrence threshold was arbitrarily fixed at ≥20 occurrences without a sensitivity test; network robustness was not examined (e.g., 100 iterative Louvain runs to yield ARI/NMI), and key topological metrics—network density, average clustering coefficient, and modularity Q—were not reported, preventing assessment of partition reliability. We recommend adding sensitivity panels that compare network indices at thresholds of 10, 20, and 30 occurrences, and conducting built-in randomisation tests in Gephi or VOSviewer to report the modularity Q and its associated z-score.
3. Sections 2.1–2.5 largely consist of sequential literature summaries without comparative assessment, performance benchmarking, or gap identification. Each subsection should close with a concise synthesis that highlights: (i) key scientific challenges, (ii) environmental/economic constraints, and (iii) future research priorities. Example: "Current bioenergy routes are limited by feedstock-food competition and uncertain life-cycle carbon balances; future work should prioritize waste-based feedstocks and integration with carbon capture."
4. The manuscript is almost entirely narrative. To enhance data-driven readability, please incorporate: (a) trend graphs of efficiency gains and cost reductions by technology, (b) stacked-area or pie charts of global energy shares.
5. The Conclusion presently restates earlier sections without offering novel insights or policy guidance. Please strengthen the final section by: (i) proposing a unifying framework for renewable-energy synergies (hybrid systems, regional energy planning), (ii) discussing carbon-neutrality policy instruments (carbon pricing, ETS), and (iii) outlining forward-looking research avenues (AI-optimized energy systems, negative-emission technologies).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your improving recommendations!

We implemented your recommendations in the paper by highlighting them in green and inserting a comment with the code R2-Cn, where R2 represents Reviewer 2 and n is the number of your comment C (from C1 to C5).

Thank you!

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I have reviewed the revised version and confirm its accuracy.
I have no additional comments. I wish the author success in future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept.