Next Article in Journal
Unveiling Light-Absorbing Carbonaceous Aerosols at a Regional Background Site in Southern Balkans
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Automated Spread–F (SF) Detection over the Midlatitude Ionosphere
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Estimation of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Town Gas Distribution System in Hong Kong in 2022

Atmosphere 2025, 16(6), 643; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16060643
by Daisong Chen 1, Tsz Lap Chan 2 and Jin Shang 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Atmosphere 2025, 16(6), 643; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16060643
Submission received: 17 April 2025 / Revised: 17 May 2025 / Accepted: 23 May 2025 / Published: 26 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Air Pollution Control)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is well-written and provides informative content. I recommend its publication subject to minor revisions.

Regarding the literature review, the cited references are predominantly from publications prior to 2018. I strongly recommend that the authors incorporate more recent works from the past five years to ensure the review reflects the current state of research.

Additionally, what are the academic contributions of the study? I suggest that the authors explicitly highlight the key academic contributions either in the Introduction section or in the Conclusions to clarify the novelty and significance of the work. This is very important for a academic paper.

Author Response

The responses to comments are shown in the word file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. While reading the title, I noticed that the word "From" is not appropriate to write in uppercase. Additionally, the number "2" should be replaced by the word "two", to maintain consistency and formality
  2. In the abstract, the authors designate "Town Gas" as the official study site; nevertheless, inconsistent use of the site's name within the paragraph detracts from the overall clarity of the manuscript
  3. The introduction lacks research questions and hypotheses. Moreover, the study's objectives are not articulated
  4. It appears that the manuscript lacks adequate English writing, negatively impacting the clarity and coherence of the scientific text. For instance, the phrase "Accordingly, the leakage percentage of each component can be estimated accordingly" illustrates redundancy
  5. The Results and Discussion sections require significant improvement, particularly regarding the comparison and in-depth analysis of the main evidence, which appears to be related to the absence of well-defined research questions and hypotheses
  6. The references within the manuscript do not conform to the formatting guidelines specified by the authors' instructions, which require that "reference numbers be placed in square brackets [ ]."

Author Response

The responses to the comments are shown in the word file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop