The Impact of Offshore Photovoltaic Utilization on Resources and Environment Using Spatial Information Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a commendable hydrodynamic simulation of offshore PV utilizing the MIKE21FM model. The rationales driving this study are articulated with clarity and precision. The model validation process is thorough, resulting in reasonably accurate outcomes. The paper effectively addresses the impacts of offshore PV deployment on environments and marine ecosystems, contributing valuable insights to the field. However, further elaboration on specific environmental considerations and mitigation strategies could enhance the depth of analysis. While the recommendations for offshore PV site selection and construction planning are commendable, integrating cost-benefit analyses or socio-economic assessments would enrich the practical applicability of these recommendations. Overall, the paper exhibits a high level of thoroughness, with well-structured content and clear writing. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is attractive and contains useful information; however, applying following revisions can further improve its quality:

1. Abstract section is long. It can be shorten and just focus on the important points. Furthermore, adding some more quantitative results could be useful. 

2. Some of the keywords such as "energy" are very general. It is better to replace them with more meaningful words. 

3. Check the reference style to be in the format of the journal. 

4. Some of the paragraphs in the introduction section are too long. It is better to use 4-5 paragraph and each one with around 250-350 words. 

5. Aims of the study, important contributions and novelties of the work should be clearly indicated in the last paragraph of the introduction section. 

6. Is there any reason behind the selection of this case for the study?

7. Reprinted figures need permission. 

8. Add reference for the equations used from other sources. 

9. Results and discussion section are appropriate; however, quality of the figures can be improved. 

10. Adding some relevant references from Water journal could be useful. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is needed to recheck the manuscript and improve its writing. There could be some errors and typos. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are included as attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

for my considerations see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf