Research on Low-Carbon Capability Evaluation Model of City Regional Integrated Energy System under Energy Market Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Section 1
- The urgency or novelty of the study is not clearly stated. The authors should be able to provide the knowledge gap found in previous related studies.
- The term regional integrated energy system is unclear. The authors should explain the term RIES, and the context of ‘regional’ intended for this study, the size, the type of region administratively, since the meaning of regional/region differs in different countries.
Section 2
On line 88, it is a bit confusing that the author put IESTC as the abbreviation of Regional Integrated Energy Trading Centre. Perhaps an explanation or a special section at the end of the paper should be dedicated for abbreviation.
Section 3
The authors should explain the references or studies used for formulating the RIES criteria.
Section 5
The third conclusion, especially regarding a perfect trading system needs to be elaborated. Since it is a little bit impossible to have a perfect market system, so the authors have to explain what they mean by that, or what is it that they expected after knowing that ‘market benefit’ is the main driving factor.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. We have carefully revised the article as you suggested. We hope you will be satisfied with the result of our revision.Please see to the attachment for specific modifications.
Best wishes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript in the present version contains several problems. Appropriate revisions should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
1. It is mentioned that ANP-CRITIC is used. What are the advantages of adopting these particular methods over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
2. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
3. There is a serious concern regarding the novelty of this work. What new has been proposed?
4. Abstract needs to modify and to be revised to be quantitative. You can absorb readers' consideration by having some numerical results in this section.
5. There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.
6. The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
7. In conclusion section, limitations and recommendations of this research should be highlighted.
8. The authors have to add the state-of-the art references in the manuscripts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. We have carefully revised the article as you suggested. We hope you will be satisfied with the result of our revision.Please see to the attachment for specific modifications.
Best wishes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form