Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle as a Power Plant: Techno-Economic Scenario Analysis of a Renewable Integrated Transportation and Energy System for Smart Cities in Two Climates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

please accept my congratulations on your wonderful work. Diagrams, data, tables are all well thought out.

The scenario is somewhat hypothetical, but can provide a glimpse into the future. However, some of the scoring came out somewhat lower. Why?

Well it is very thorough paper to an exhaustion. To me it seems like a report to a granting agency (or entire thesis) to which you promised a thorough literature review, and here it is ~400 sources. There are some formatting issues with that . When calling out reference numbers in the text many numbers are out of order within the square brackets.

All data is described to the overbearing level. It took over 4 hours to read the main 25-30 pages. So it seems that you didn't think about the reader's time or imagining we would not trust. The paper should show not only prolific explanation but trust in the reader to trust you.

So my recommendation is to reduce the paper twice or 3 times. No more than two references per claim, maybe 3 in extreme few cases.

Remove descriptions but leave input data in the tables to improve paper readability efficiency.  Revise/reduce appendix as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dears Authors,

The concept of the paper is good and the quality of presentation is also good.

The research methodology and the results obtained are correct. 

I recommend that the paper be accepted for publications.

Kind Regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting research.

Research aims and obtained research could be better specified in the abstract. Moreover, the existing criticalities as well as the novelties and the innovation contributions of the research could be better pinpointed in the introduction.

I have no objections on the methodology and the obtained experimental results pinpointed the high accuracy of the proposed model as stated in the conclusions.

Many references are included without specifying their specific contribution, moreover most of them are cited in numerous groups that do not help the readers. As example in lines 46-54: nine rows includes 45 references (from 11 to 56). The same in lines 101 and 102. Indeed, more than 400 references are generally too many for a scientific paper like this one.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The updated paper is in more readable condition and can be recommended for publication. However, the edits have resulted in a large number of missing references. So this needs to be addressed before the release.

Author Response

Many thanks for the useful comments and your time and effort to review our manuscript. We have tried our best to address all comments received from all reviewers.

There are no references missing. Reference numbers 1-231 are in the main text. 232-347 are in the appendices.

As well in total another 27 references have been removed in the Introduction. 

line 49&50 2 references removed
line 54 8 references removed
line 79 split the references in 2 groups so their specific contribution is emphasized, 1 group is introduced in line 78 and inserted behind the word "intra-annual"
line 100 7 references removed
line 101 6 references removed
line 102 4 references removed

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been improved. Anyway, I am still convinced that too many references are included without specifying their specific contribution, moreover most of them are cited in numerous groups that do not help the readers and it does not look adequate for a scientific journal. Anyway I think the editor could properly make the final decision about this issue.

Author Response

Many thanks for the useful comments and your time and effort to review our manuscript. We have tried our best to address all comments received from all reviewers.

In total another 27 references have been removed in the Introduction.

line 49&50 2 references removed
line 54 8 references removed
line 79 split the references in 2 groups so their specific contribution is emphasized, 1 group is introduced in line 78 and inserted behind the word "intra-annual".
line 100 7 references removed
line 101 6 references removed
line 102 4 references removed