Evaluating Preparedness and Overcoming Challenges in Electricity Trading: An In-Depth Analysis Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a Case Study Exploration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is interesting. It has important contributions. However, I believe that its presentation and explanation could be improved.
1. The introduction is too long. It is advisable to leave in the introduction only the justification-motivation-novel contribution-objective and structure. All the part that refers to the data and context of Nepal and the Nepal affronter should go in a new section. That is, everything that is included in section 1 from 1.3. to the end of section 1.3. should go in a new section.
2. The methodology section is correct, but it is better to explain each figure and table one at a time, rather than referring to them all and then presenting them all at once. That is, explain one figure and show it. Explain the next one and show it... This helps the reader understand the whole process better.
3. The same goes for tables of results. Please explain each table a little at a time instead of all at once. At the end of the whole section, clearly summarize what the results are. You see a lot of results, but at the end it is not clear what they are and you have to look for them.
Regarding Methodology
The authors write
The data collection procedure started with the identification of the respondents. The data was collected in two stages. In the first stage, in-depth interviews with the respondents were performed to identify the prevailing barriers to Nepal’s hydropower market beyond the border. Also, a survey questionnaire was prepared based on the information obtained from the expert and the literature review. Regarding the questionnaire, the expert opinion is similar to the findings of a literature review.
This is not a result? What about this questionary? In an appendix? Which are the main questions? How many respondents? You have to write about that here or in the results section
In the second stage, the respondents were asked to perform pairwise comparisons of sub-criteria of the policy, technical, financial, social, and geopolitical barriers. This method was also used to perform the pairwise comparison of barriers themselves using the average geometric mean. What are expected to obtain with this comparison?
Then the data from the survey conducted in the second stage was compiled and analysed using Python code and the AHPy library. The entire methodology used in this research is shown in Figure 9.
Refer to this Figure before, just when you say you use a two step process
This study uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank the barriers that impede energy trading with neighbours. What is this? Please explain a bit. Is this a part of the second stage? Explain better
The identified barriers are presented in Table 4. Please explain a bit this Table, because you are going to refer to it in the results
What about the Figure 10? You presented but do not say anything about it
In the data collection process, 25 expert respondents prominent in the energy sector and senior academicians who were readily available for all stages of interviews through non-probabilistic purposive sampling were chosen.
Are these the respondents of the 1 st phase?
The detailed information on the respondents is 289 presented in Table 6.
What about Table 5? Why don´t you relate Table 6 with the first phase, and then explain the second?
The AHP method's reliability depends on the respondents' selection for the research. This is not of the second phase? The experts were selected through a non-probabilistic method; purposive sampling helped create the sample of experts [31] with knowledge of the selected domain from the diverse backgrounds of government sectors, private sector, academia, and donors. The 25 experts interviewed knew the Nepalese power system very well and were in decision making positions. Additionally, the willingness of respondents to participate in the survey was important; only 20 participants answered with a consistency ratio of less than ten percent. What that means? Therefore, five of the responses were excluded from the analysis. This is again second phase After compiling the response, we used the Python library AHPy and Python code to calculate the criteria's local weight, global weight, and consistency ratio (C.R.), and also calculated the sub-criteria global measures and local weight ranking. Similarly, we have computed Cronbach’s alpha (𝞪) using Python to ensure the reliability of the research survey. Authors have to explain what that means.
Where do you explain the last steps of the second phase? I mean, how do you get the conclusions, and previous steps? Explain something about that.
Regarding the results
I think you have to write here:
Results of phase 1. What do you obtain from that phase
Results of phase two:
Step 1. Pairwise comparison-please relate to the Table 4 (I think)
The following Table 7 illustrates the comparison matrices of sub-criteria Sub–Criteria under Technical Criteria IS not Table 11?). This is the average of the response of all respondents. The average method applied in all comparison maTabless (explain) is in Table 7- 11.
Please explain more specifically what do you present in this Tables? What do you obtain in this Tables?? What they illustrate?
I think this is the second step of the Phase 2. Please explain or related to the methodology. The results of ranking all barriers, viz. technical, policy, financial and social, and geopolitical barriers, are shown in Tables 12-16.
Explanations from Table 12 to 15 are much better explained. But please explain better the The Consistency Ratio (CR) of the Technical Barriers sub-criteria is = 0.037 < 0.1 (O.K) What means OK?
Table 16 and Figure 11 represent the same. You can use Figure 11 and you do not need Table 16
The ranking of the groups, viz. barriers, was based on the weightage of global factors. The overall ranking and group-wise ranking are shown in Table 17. Is this a new step of pphase 2? Please explain and relate to the method.
The study finds that policy barriers prevail more than other sectoral barriers like technical, policy, and financial and social and Geopolitical Barriers. I think this is related to Figure 11? Therefore, the policies of Nepal and India are hindering the CBET for Nepal. Referring to the overall rank of the results, PB6> PB4>PB8 416 >FB1>PB2> FB3> SGB4 > PB 7 >PB5 >PB3 and so on. This is from Table 17, no? Please explain better what that relationships mean, try to give some main results you can see from that Table
You do not present nor explain how is Figure 12 done and what represents.
From Table 17 and Figure 12, the research analysis suggests that the PB6 is the most critical barrier, with an overall priority value 20.7 % among the 19 barrier factors of the study. Other significant factors in order are PB4 having an overall priority value of 8.8 %, PB 8 having a priority value of 8.5 %, and FB1 with an overall priority value of 8.0 %, etc.
Please remember in this step what is PB6, PB4… If you do that, the readers will know the barriers, and do not have to return to Table 4 to check. You can do that for the main barriers, for example.
3.1. Reliability of survey. I think this is related to step 1, so please refer to it previously.
3.2. The status of preparedness for cross border electricity trade. I think this is not a result of the analysis, or this is one step of Phase 2. You present in the scheme of phases that you were going to obtain a conclusion from the result, please be very clear
After all the study, which is the main result of all empirical study. Please write in the results section, and then you can have the discussion
Author Response
Subject: Regarding Major Revision of Manuscript ID electricity-2874959
Dear Editor
MDPI, Electricity
Greetings!!!
Dear Sir,
We are writing to confirm that we have addressed the feedback proposed by the respected reviewer’s, held on April 7th April 2024, regarding our submitted Manuscript ID electricity-2874959 . We would like to thank all of you for the thoughtful and insightful revision to enhance our manuscript. Please find below a summary of the issues and our responses where you all pinpointed.
Yours sincerely,
Suraj Regmi & Ramhari Poudyal, Ph.D.
Corresponding Authors
For the article to be examined for the journal, it is recommended that the following steps be taken. We have revised our manuscript ID, electricity-2874959, as per your instructions as follows:
|
Recommendations |
Action by the Authors |
Additional work is done by the Authors |
Page No. / Line no |
|
Reviewer 1
|
Thank you very much for your encouraging words to enhance our manuscript.
|
|
|
|
The introduction is too long. It is advisable to leave in the introduction only the justification-motivation-novel contribution-objective and structure. All the part that refers to the data and context of Nepal and the Nepal affronter should go in a new section. That is, everything that is included in section 1 from 1.3. to the end of section 1.3. should go in a new section. |
While we appreciate your perspective on restructuring the introduction, we have decided to maintain section 1.3 within the introduction as we believe it provides essential context and background for the study. However, we have carefully considered your feedback and made adjustments to streamline the introduction, ensuring that it focuses primarily on the justification, motivation, novel contribution, objective, and structure of the paper. We trust that this approach maintains the coherence of the manuscript while addressing your concerns. |
|
Refer Section 1; page 1-2 Refer Section 1.3page 3-6 |
|
The methodology section is correct, but it is better to explain each figure and table one at a time, rather than referring to them all and then presenting them all at once. That is, explain one figure and show it. Explain the next one and show it... This helps the reader understand the whole process better. |
We agree that explaining each figure and table one at a time can enhance the reader's understanding of the methodology. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the methodology section to follow a step-by-step approach, where each figure and table is introduced and explained individually before being presented. |
|
Refer section 2- page 10-14 |
|
The same goes for tables of results. Please explain each table a little at a time instead of all at once. At the end of the whole section, clearly summarize what the results are. You see a lot of results, but at the end, it is not clear what they are, and you have to look for them. |
In response to your feedback, we have revised the result section to provide a more structured and detailed explanation of each table of results, presented one at a time. Additionally, we have incorporated a clear summary at the end of the section to succinctly outline the key findings of our study. |
|
Refer Section 3-page 15-19 |
|
Regarding Methodology: This is not a result? What about this questionary? In an appendix? Which are the main questions? How many respondents? You have to write about that here or in the results section.
|
In response to your feedback, we will incorporate this information in the methodology section ensuring that readers have a clear understanding of the survey instrument, the number of respondents, and the key questions addressed. Also, the questionnaire has been included in Appendix A |
|
Refer section 2, page 10 line 285-291. |
|
What are expected to obtain with this comparison? |
The comparison has been done calculate the weightage global factors and local factor which has been used to rank the barriers. |
The entire paragraph has been adjusted incorporating the feedback. |
Refer line 291-301; page 10 |
|
Refer to this Figure before, just when you say you use a two-step process |
The figure has been referred at appropriate chronology. |
|
Refer line 285-286; page 10 |
|
This study uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank the barriers that impede energy trading with neighbors. What is this? Please explain a bit. Is this a part of the second stage? Explain better. |
A more detailed explanation on AHP is provided making the second stage clearer. |
|
Refer line 302-315; page 10-11. |
|
The identified barriers are presented in Table 4. Please explain a bit this Table, because you are going to refer to it in the results. |
A brief explanation of Table 4 is added to clarify the significance of the identified barriers. |
|
Refer line 316-323; page 11. |
|
What about the Figure 10? You presented but do not say anything about it |
A more detailed explanation about figure 10 had been included in the manuscript. |
|
Refer line 366-379; page 12 |
|
In the data collection process, 25 expert respondents prominent in the energy sector and senior academicians who were readily available for all stages of interviews through non-probabilistic purposive sampling were chosen. Are these the respondents of the 1 st phase? The detailed information on the respondents is 289 presented in Table 6. What about Table 5? Why don´t you relate Table 6 with the first phase, and then explain the second? The AHP method's reliability depends on the respondents' selection for the research. This is not of the second phase?
|
The entire section has been redone addressing the questions put forward. Explanation for table 5 has been added to the manuscript. |
|
Refer section 2 page 10-11 Refer line 384-396 page 14 |
|
Clarification regarding Python library AHPy and Python code,Cronbach’s alpha (?) |
Additional explanation has been added addressing the questions put forth by the reviewer. |
|
Refer line 339-354 ; page 11 |
|
Where do you explain the last steps of the second phase? I mean, how do you get the conclusions, and previous steps? Explain something about that. |
A paragraph has been added solely explaining the final stage and how conclusion has been drawn |
|
Refer 355-362; page 11 |
|
Regarding the results I think you have to write here: Results of phase 1. What do you obtain from that phase
|
Explanation regarding the results obtained from phase 1 has been added |
|
Refer line 403-411, page 15 |
|
Clarification on presentation of the results in tables 7-16 Please explain more specifically what do you present in this Tables? What do you obtain in this Tables?? What they illustrate? |
A more in-depth details on the results shown from table 7-16 has been added. |
|
Refer section 3 line 418-477; page 15-18 |
|
Reliability of survey. I think this is related to step 1, so please refer to it previously. |
The reliability of survey is not related to step 1 rather it is step 3 of stage 2. |
|
Refer figure; page 12 |
|
The status of preparedness for cross border electricity trade. I think this is not a result of the analysis, or this is one step of Phase 2. You present in the scheme of phases that you were going to obtain a conclusion from the result, please be very clear |
The status of preparedness of cross border electricity trade is not the result of the AHP analysis but it is the result drawn from interview of experts regarding the contemporary electricity trading status of Nepal. |
|
Refer line 523-529; page 20 |
|
After all the study, which is the main result of all empirical study. Please write in the results section, and then you can have the discussion |
We have included a dedicated subsection within the results section to highlight the primary finding of our empirical investigation. |
|
Refer line 540-549; page 21 |
|
Reviewer 2
The abstract does not truly reflect the scope of the study, itshould comprehensively add the key conclusive facts andfigures, some details of the methods to cover the study entirely |
Yes, we re-write the abstract to cover the scope of this study adding comprehensively the conclusive facts, and methodology adopted to carry out this research. |
- |
Please Refer Page 1, Line 11-25. |
|
Line 25 states “Nepal has enormous hydropower potential”and line 27 repeats “Nepal has huge hydropower potential.” Thistype of redundant sentences should be removed and the overallflow of the write-up should be improved. |
The redundant sentence 27 is removed and the overall flow of the write –up is improved. |
- |
Please Refer Page 1, Line 32-34. |
|
All the abbreviations should be used uniformly, e.g. CBETand CBT, etc. |
It is changed to CBET, and all abbreviations are checked again and used uniformly. |
- |
NA |
|
The description of some of the figures and tables is givenafter the tables and figures, it is better to mention them in the textbefore presenting them; however, their explanation may becontinued after the tables and figures. |
As per reviewer’s comment the description of the figures and tables has been done forehand. |
|
Refer line 188-196, page: 5 403- 432; page: 15
|
|
Lines 142 and 143, “with an installed capacity of above 10,000 MW,” reference should be provided. |
Appropriate reference has been added. |
|
Refer line 147-148; page 4. |
|
Figure 2 is ambiguous and it is difficult to read the number of projects, it should be modified to enhance the readability. |
The readability of figure 2 has been improved clearly showing number of projects too. |
|
Refer page: 5 |
|
Figures 4 and 5 are also ambiguous, the colour selection should be different, it is difficult to distinguish among legend colors. |
The color selection has been adjusted to ensure better distinguishability among legend colors. We believe these changes enhance the clarity and readability of the figures. |
|
Reefer page: 6 |
|
Figure 7 is not readable, the cross-border connecting point should be zoomed in this figure. |
The resolution of the figure has been improved as much as possible. Furthermore, the pdf format will be sent to the editor to improve the readability further. |
|
Refer page: 9. |
|
The appearance of Figure 9 should be improved using Visio or some other software. |
We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have improved the appearance of the figure using Visio, ensuring better clarity and presentation. We believe these enhancements contribute positively to the overall quality of the manuscript. |
|
Refer page:12. |
|
Lines 465 to 468, reference should be provided. |
Appropriate reference has been added. |
|
Refer line 532; page 20. |
|
Typos are found in the manuscript, e.g. line 133, Ne-pal, line 368 maTabless, etc. |
We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected the errors |
|
Ref. Entire manuscript |
|
The discussion and conclusion sections are ambiguous, conclusions are just a replica of the abstract, it should contain the facts and figures. The majority of the points given in the discussion should be part of the conclusions. E.g. it is given in the discussion section that; lines 485-86 “This study reveals that the provisions mentioned in the CBET guidelines issued by India's government are r hurdles for cross-border electricity trade.” It is a conclusion, however, the discussion section should include which specific guideline is creating hurdles, why, what could be remedy, etc. |
We have revised the conclusion section to provide more substantive insights, including specific findings and figures from the study. Additionally, we have enhanced the discussion section by elaborating on the hurdles for cross-border electricity trade, specifying the problematic guidelines issued by India's government, discussing their implications, and proposing potential remedies. These adjustments aim to improve the clarity and depth of our analysis, aligning with the expectations of the readership. |
|
Refer section 4; page 21-22. Section 5; page 22-23
|
|
The number of references needs to be enhanced. |
The number of references has been added to enhance the quality of paper. |
|
Refer Page 25 |
|
Minor English editing is required; abbreviations should be used uniformly |
Standard English is used. abbreviations are used Uniformly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsT A. The authors have presented a study to assess readiness and barriers to Nepal’s cross-border energy trade with India and Bangladesh using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The work is interesting; however, it needs a major revision to address the following concerns.
B. The abstract does not truly reflect the scope of the study, it should comprehensively add the key conclusive facts and figures, some details of the methods to cover the study entirely.
C. Line 25 states “Nepal has enormous hydropower potential” and line 27 repeats “Nepal has huge hydropower potential.” This type of redundant sentences should be removed and the overall flow of the write-up should be improved.
D. All the abbreviations should be used uniformly, e.g. CBET and CBT, etc.
E. The description of some of the figures and tables is given after the tables and figures, it is better to mention them in the text before presenting them; however, their explanation may be continued after the tables and figures.
F. Lines 142 and 143, “with an installed capacity of above 10,000 MW,” reference should be provided.
G. Figure 2 is ambiguous and it is difficult to read the number of projects, it should be modified to enhance the readability.
H. Figures 4 and 5 are also ambiguous, the colour selection should be different, it is difficult to distinguish among legend colours.
I. Figure 7 is not readable, the cross-border connecting point should be zoomed in this figure.
J. The appearance of Figure 9 should be improved using Visio or some other software.
K. Lines 465 to 468, reference should be provided.
L. Typos are found in the manuscript, e.g. line 133, Ne-pal, line 368 maTabless, etc.
M. Table 19 is solely based on ref. [15], it should be enhanced in the light of the current study.
N. The discussion and conclusion sections are ambiguous, conclusions are just a replica of the abstract, it should contain the facts and figures. The majority of the points given in the discussion should be part of the conclusions. E.g. it is given in the discussion section that; lines 485-86 “This study reveals that the provisions mentioned in the CBET guidelines issued by India's government are r hurdles for cross-border electricity trade.” It is a conclusion, however, the discussion section should include which specific guideline is creating hurdles, why, what could be remedy, etc.
O. The number of references needs to be enhanced; the authors should also consult the following two relevant studies.
P. “Energy management in South Asia,” Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 21, 2018, Pages 25-34, ISSN 2211-467X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.04.004. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X18300191)
Q. “A comparative review of China, India and Pakistan renewable energy sectors and sharing opportunities,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 57, 2016, Pages 216-225, ISSN 1364-0321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.191. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115015749)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
1. Minor English editing is required; abbreviations should be used uniformly.
2. Typos are found in the manuscript, e.g. line 133, Ne-pal, line 368 maTabless, etc.
Author Response
Subject: Regarding Major Revision of Manuscript ID electricity-2874959
Dear Editor
MDPI, Electricity
Greetings!!!
Dear Sir,
We are writing to confirm that we have addressed the feedback proposed by the respected reviewer’s, held on the 7th of April 2024, regarding our submitted manuscript ID electricity-2874959. We would like to thank all of you for our thoughtful and insightful revision to enhance our manuscript. Please find below a summary of the issues and our responses that you all pinpointed.
Yours sincerely,
Suraj Regmi & Ramhari Poudyal, Ph.D.
Corresponding Authors
For the article to be examined for the Journal, it is recommended that the following steps are taken.We have revised our manuscript ID, electricity-2874959, as per your instructions as follows:
|
Recommendations |
Action by the Authors |
Additional work is done by the Authors |
Page No. / Line no |
|
Reviewer 1
|
Thank you very much for your encouraging words to enhance our manuscript.
|
|
|
|
The introduction is too long. It is advisable to leave in the introduction only the justification-motivation-novel contribution-objective and structure. All the part that refers to the data and context of Nepal and the Nepal affronter should go in a new section. That is, everything that is included in section 1 from 1.3. to the end of section 1.3. should go in a new section. |
While we appreciate your perspective on restructuring the introduction, we have decided to maintain section 1.3 within the introduction as we believe it provides essential context and background for the study. However, we have carefully considered your feedback and made adjustments to streamline the introduction, ensuring that it focuses primarily on the justification, motivation, novel contribution, objective, and structure of the paper. We trust that this approach maintains the coherence of the manuscript while addressing your concerns. |
|
Refer Section 1; page 1-2 Refer Section 1.3page 3-6 |
|
The methodology section is correct, but it is better to explain each figure and table one at a time, rather than referring to them all and then presenting them all at once. That is, explain one figure and show it. Explain the next one and show it... This helps the reader understand the whole process better. |
We agree that explaining each figure and table one at a time can enhance the reader's understanding of the methodology. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the methodology section to follow a step-by-step approach, where each figure and table is introduced and explained individually before being presented. |
|
Refer section 2- page 10-14 |
|
The same goes for tables of results. Please explain each table a little at a time instead of all at once. At the end of the whole section, clearly summarize what the results are. You see a lot of results, but at the end it is not clear what they are and you have to look for them. |
In response to your feedback, we have revised the result section to provide a more structured and detailed explanation of each table of results, presented one at a time. Additionally, we have incorporated a clear summary at the end of the section to succinctly outline the key findings of our study. |
|
Refer Section 3-page 15-19 |
|
Regarding Methodology: This is not a result? What about this questionary? In an appendix? Which are the main questions? How many respondents? You have to write about that here or in the results section
|
In response to your feedback, we will incorporate this information in the methodology section, ensuring that readers have a clear understanding of the survey instrument, the number of respondents, and the key questions addressed. Also, the questionnaire has been included in Appendix A |
|
Refer section 2, page 10 line 285-291. |
|
What are expected to obtain with this comparison? |
The comparison has been done calculate the weightage global factors and local factor which has been used to rank the barriers. |
The entire paragraph has been adjusted incorporating the feedback. |
Refer line 291-301; page 10. |
|
Refer to this Figure before, just when you say you use a two-step process |
The figure has been referred at appropriate chronology. |
|
Refer line 285-286; page 10 |
|
This study uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank the barriers that impede energy trading with neighbors.What is this? Please explain a bit. Is this a part of the second stage? Explain better |
A more detailed explanation on AHP is provided making the second stage clearer. |
|
Refer line 302-315; page 10-11. |
|
The identified barriers are presented in Table 4. Please explain a bit this Table, because you are going to refer to it in the results. |
A brief explanation of Table 4 is added to clarify the significance of the identified barriers. |
|
Refer line 316-323; page 11. |
|
What about the Figure 10? You presented but do not say anything about it |
A more detailed explanation about figure 10 had been included in the manuscript. |
|
Refer line 366-379; page 12. |
|
In the data collection process, 25 expert respondents prominent in the energy sector and senior academicians who were readily available for all stages of interviews through non-probabilistic purposive sampling were chosen. Are these the respondents of the 1 st phase? The detailed information on the respondents is 289 presented in Table 6. What about Table 5? Why don´t you relate Table 6 with the first phase, and then explain the second? The AHP method's reliability depends on the respondents' selection for the research. This is not of the second phase?
|
The entire section has been redone addressing the questions put forward. Explanation for table 5 has been added to the manuscript. |
|
Refer section 2 page 10-11. Refer line 384-396 page 14. |
|
Clarification regarding Python library AHPy and Python code,Cronbach’s alpha (?) |
Additional explanation has been added addressing the questions put forth by the reviewer. |
|
Refer line 339-354 ; page 11 |
|
Where do you explain the last steps of the second phase? I mean, how do you get the conclusions, and previous steps? Explain something about that. |
A paragraph has been added solely explaining the final stage and how conclusion has been drawn |
|
Refer 355-362; page 11 |
|
Regarding the results I think you have to write here: Results of phase 1. What do you obtain from that phase
|
Explanation regarding the results obtained from phase 1 has been added. |
|
Refer line 403-411, page 15. |
|
Clarification on presentation of the results in tables 7-16 Please explain more specifically what do you present in this Tables? What do you obtain in this Tables?? What they illustrate? |
A more in-depth details on the results shown from table 7-16 has been added. |
|
Refer section 3 line 418-477; page 15-18 |
|
Reliability of survey. I think this is related to step 1, so please refer to it previously. |
The reliability of survey is not related to step 1 rather it is step 3 of stage 2. |
|
Refer figure; page 12 |
|
The status of preparedness for cross border electricity trade. I think this is not a result of the analysis, or this is one step of Phase 2. You present in the scheme of phases that you were going to obtain a conclusion from the result, please be very clear |
The status of preparedness of cross border electricity trade is not the result of the AHP analysis but it is the result drawn from interview of experts regarding the contemporary electricity trading status of Nepal. |
|
Refer line 523-529; page 20 |
|
After all the study, which is the main result of all empirical study. Please write in the results section, and then you can have the discussion |
We have included a dedicated subsection within the results section to highlight the primary finding of our empirical investigation. |
|
Refer line 540-549; page 21. |
|
Reviewer 2
The abstract does not truly reflect the scope of the study, itshould comprehensively add the key conclusive facts andfigures, some details of the methods to cover the study entirely |
Yes, we re-write the abstract to cover the scope of this study adding comprehensively the conclusive facts, and methodology adopted to carry out this research. |
- |
Please Refer Page 1, Line 11-25. |
|
Line 25 states “Nepal has enormous hydropower potential”and line 27 repeats “Nepal has huge hydropower potential.” Thistype of redundant sentences should be removed and the overallflow of the write-up should be improved. |
The redundant sentence 27 is removed and the overall flow of the write –up is improved. |
- |
Please Refer Page 1, Line 32-34. |
|
All the abbreviations should be used uniformly, e.g. CBETand CBT, etc. |
It is changed to CBET, and all abbreviations are checked again and used uniformly. |
- |
NA |
|
The description of some of the figures and tables is givenafter the tables and figures, it is better to mention them in the textbefore presenting them; however, their explanation may becontinued after the tables and figures. |
As per reviewer’s comment the description of the figures and tables has been done forehand. |
|
Refer line 188-196, page: 5. 403- 432; page: 15
|
|
Lines 142 and 143, “with an installed capacity of above 10,000 MW,” reference should be provided. |
Appropriate reference has been added |
|
Refer line 147-148; page 4 |
|
Figure 2 is ambiguous and it is difficult to read the number of projects, it should be modified to enhance the readability. |
The readability of figure 2 has been improved clearly showing number of projects too. |
|
Refer page: 5 |
|
Figures 4 and 5 are also ambiguous, the colour selection should be different, it is difficult to distinguish among legend colors. |
The color selection has been adjusted to ensure better distinguishability among legend colors. We believe these changes enhance the clarity and readability of the figures. |
|
Reefer page: 6 |
|
Figure 7 is not readable, the cross-border connecting point should be zoomed in this figure. |
The resolution of the figure has been improved as much as possible. Furthermore, the pdf format will be sent to the editor to improve the readability further. |
|
Refer page: 9 |
|
The appearance of Figure 9 should be improved using Visio or some other software. |
We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have improved the appearance of the figure using Visio, ensuring better clarity and presentation. We believe these enhancements contribute positively to the overall quality of the manuscript. |
|
Refer page:12 |
|
Lines 465 to 468, reference should be provided. |
Appropriate reference has been added. |
|
Refer line 532; page 20 |
|
Typos are found in the manuscript, e.g. line 133, Ne-pal, line 368 maTabless, etc. |
We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected the errors |
|
Ref. Entire manuscript |
|
The discussion and conclusion sections are ambiguous, conclusions are just a replica of the abstract, it should contain the facts and figures. The majority of the points given in the discussion should be part of the conclusions. E.g. it is given in the discussion section that; lines 485-86 “This study reveals that the provisions mentioned in the CBET guidelines issued by India's government are r hurdles for cross-border electricity trade.” It is a conclusion, however, the discussion section should include which specific guideline is creating hurdles, why, what could be remedy, etc. |
We have revised the conclusion section to provide more substantive insights, including specific findings and figures from the study. Additionally, we have enhanced the discussion section by elaborating on the hurdles for cross-border electricity trade, specifying the problematic guidelines issued by India's government, discussing their implications, and proposing potential remedies. These adjustments aim to improve the clarity and depth of our analysis, aligning with the expectations of the readership. |
|
Refer section 4; page 21-22 Section 5; page 22-23
|
|
The number of references needs to be enhanced. |
The number of references has been added to enhance the quality of paper. |
|
Refer Page 25 |
|
Minor English editing is required; abbreviations should be used uniformly |
Standard English is used. abbreviations are used Uniformly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have significantly improved the manuscript and it is recommended for acceptance.
