The Assessment of the Bioeconomy and Biomass Sectors in Central and Eastern European Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The article analyzes 10 EU countries, as indicated in the title and in the introduction. The term Central and Eastern European Countries used may, according to some authors / institutions, include other countries. Hence, I would suggest adding, for example in the introduction, that it concerns selected CEE countries. Additionally, the term Central and Eastern European Countries should be used consistently, not East (line 112)
- The Authors describe the countries studied (line 114-122), but the description is very general and, as one may judge from the quotation, is based on the conclusions of another article. I would suggest that the description of the analyzed countries be improved and more detailed, e.g. with the use of Eurostat data. Getting to know the specificity of countries seems to be important in the context of the conclusions of the analyzes carried out in the empirical part.
- Doubts may arise from the formulation of the aim of the study (line 130), where analysis was indicated as a aim and not as a tool to achieve it. I would suggest giving the purpose of the work first, and then research questions, characterized by greater detail. Why is there a different aim in the abstract?
- In the methodological part, the databases used for the research are described in too general terms, moreover, it should be indicated which indicators will be used to describe the market under investigation.
- In general, it would be worth considering the wording of the title of the manuscript, which in the context of the aim of the work (reference to the bioeconomy market) does not seem to refer to it (Insights ???).
- In the manuscript, I miss an indication of the limitations the Authors see in their research.
- The titles of the tables require general reformulation, in tab. 11 - it is necessary to give the units of measurement in the appropriate place. What is the reason for the different order of countries in the tables
- Incomplete bibliographic descriptions appear in the references, e.g. sometimes the DOI is missing.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1
- Moderate English changes required
Thank you for the recommendation. We took care about the English language revision of the text and have checked it by an English professor from our University.
Point 1: The article analyzes 10 EU countries, as indicated in the title and in the introduction. The term Central and Eastern European Countries used may, according to some authors / institutions, include other countries. Hence, I would suggest adding, for example in the introduction, that it concerns selected CEE countries. Additionally, the term Central and Eastern European Countries should be used consistently, not East (line 112)
Response 1: Thank you very much for the recommendations. As you suggested, it is definitely need to add selected CEE countries in the Introduction section and whenever necessary to clarify the reference to the 10 European countries. We did all that modifications. As you suggested, we also changed where necessary, the term “East” in “Eastern” (please see the lines 138, 144, 171, 175, 214, 307 etc., but since this is a version with the track changes options, in the final version of the manuscript, the number of lines will be modified)
Point 2: The Authors describe the countries studied (line 114-122), but the description is very general and, as one may judge from the quotation, is based on the conclusions of another article. I would suggest that the description of the analyzed countries be improved and more detailed, e.g. with the use of Eurostat. Getting to know the specificity of countries seems to be important in the context of the conclusions of the analyzes carried out in the empirical part.
Response 2: Thank you very much. Indeed, in order for the research to be more consistent in the description of the analysed countries, we added more detailed data and comments, based on the Eurostat database. (lines 138-168, but the same as above, since this is a version with the track changes options, in the final version of the manuscript, the number of lines will be modified)
Point 3: Doubts may arise from the formulation of the aim of the study (line 130), where analysis was indicated as a aim and not as a tool to achieve it. I would suggest giving the purpose of the work first, and then research questions, characterized by greater detail. Why is there a different aim in the abstract?
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. To make the research frame clearer, we have harmonized the objective of the study with the abstract and moved the purpose of the study first, then the research questions. (please see the lines 169-178, in the track changes version)
Point 4: In the methodological part, the databases used for the research are described in too general terms, moreover, it should be indicated which indicators will be used to describe the market under investigation.
Response 4: Thank you very much for the suggestions. This was definitely important to mention. Therefore, we added the fully information about the indicators used in the analyse. (please see the lines 185-216 , in the track changes version)
Point 5: In general, it would be worth considering the wording of the title of the manuscript, which in the context of the aim of the work (reference to the bioeconomy market) does not seem to refer to it (Insights ???).
Response 5: Thank you for your proposal. We totally agreed with you. We considered to not have a complete approach of the bioeconomy market, but an assessment of the bio-economy and bio-mass sectors. In this sense, we reformulated the title of the paper as follows: The assessment of the bioeconomy and biomass sectors in Central and Eastern European Countries
Point 6: In the manuscript, I miss an indication of the limitations the Authors see in their research.
Response 6: Thank you for mentioning this miss indication in the paper. We fully agree with you. Limitations and recommendations should be part of the paper. We have added in the conclusion section of the paper the limitations and the recommendations for future research. In this respect, we introduced complementary content and bibliographical references and thus, there is now re-numbering in the References section. (please see the lines 703-734, in the track changes version)
Point 7: The titles of the tables require general reformulation, in tab. 11 - it is necessary to give the units of measurement in the appropriate place. What is the reason for the different order of countries in the tables
Response 7: Thank you for this observation. We have modified and put in the appropriate place the units of measurement for all the tables. To avoid the different order of the listed countries, we have rearranged them in a similar order, for all the tables. This different order came from the filters required when the data was extracted from the databases.
Point 8: Incomplete bibliographic descriptions appear in the references, e.g. sometimes the DOI is missing.
Response 8: Thank you very much for this remark. It is true that DOI was not always indicated. We have added this miss information, where this was available. For the other references, we have indicated the online link. Please see the changes in the updated References section, lines 750-922, in the track changes version.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has enough number of new references
The conclusion should be improved and extended: limitations and recommendations for future researches are not explained
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Point 1: The conclusion should be improved and extended: limitations and recommendations for future researches are not explained
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We completely agree with you. We have added in the conclusion section of the paper the limitations and the recommendations for future research. In this respect, we introduced complementary content and bibliographical references and thus, there is now re-numbering in the References section. (please see the lines 703-734, but since this is a version with the track changes options, in the final manuscript, the number of lines will be modified)
Reviewer 3 Report
Despite the large amount of processed literature, more can be added. This issue is actively addressed in many countries around the world.
In the conclusions there are not enough references to the mathematical results of the study. The question arises why count so much, if not then apply.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
Point 1: In the conclusions there are not enough references to the mathematical results of the study. The question arises why count so much, if not then apply.
Response 1: Thank you for this advice. The conclusion section was completed with the details necessary for a better indication of the concrete results obtained in our research. Moreover, we have identified the need for a better global referencing of the issue addressed in the article and in this sense, we have added content and the appropriate references that complemented the existing ones, thus a re-numbering in the References was done, too. (please see the lines 44-61 and 667-702, but since this is a version with the track changes options, in the final manuscript, the number of lines will be modified)
