Promising Technology Analysis and Patent Roadmap Development in the Hydrogen Supply Chain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
This paper proposes to identify potential core technologies for the hydrogen fuel supply.
This paper should be improved to be considered for publication.
The following points should be addressed:
1. References: 33 references from the 56 reported in the paper are quite old, i.e. from 2015 and older years.
2. There are no figures (numbers) supporting the technology selection.
3. The introduction does not describe the state of the art of the topic.
Author Response
Please kindly see the attached file for our replies to the reviewer's valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
My comments to manuscript, Title " Promising technology analysis and patent roadmap 2 development in the hydrogen supply chain” are given below.
The manuscript has shown the interesting work for a big data analysis of hydrogen supply chain. However, I have some comment as the following,
1. Could the authors review and give more detail how efficient of using GTM method and ARM method? Can it express as quantitative value?
2. What are the X and Y axis presenting in Table 2 and 3? I also suggest putting its caption of Part 1, 2, 3 in the tables. The more explanation is needed for Table 2.
3. Table 7 and 8 contains too much doubt numbers, it is better to put their keyword together with the number. The values presenting in the last four columns of Table 7 should be also described.
4. How the roadmap analysis from patent and paper database propose in Figure 5 relate to the current existing roadmap?
Author Response
Please kindly see the attached file for our replies to the reviewer's valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
use of passive voice of english could be better in an academic writing.
The conclusion must be a solid statement regarding the investigation. Avoid phrases like "Through the results of the study, it was possible ..." . Which results? The results should be given in a way with a supporting date/calculation/method and should be discussed regarding these.
Author Response
Please kindly see the attached file for our replies to the reviewer's valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
In this paper, promising technologies that will be the core of the hydrogen fuel supply chain in the future were identified using the published patents and research paper database (DB) in Korea, the United States, Europe, China, and Japan. The paper provide technology information that can be used promisingly in the future so that researchers in the related field can utilize it effectively. The reviewer believes that the topic of the article is worthy of investigation. I read the manuscript, I found some areas in which I would have appreciated greater clarity.
Please underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That would help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
P2, L43-51. Structure of the hydrogen supply chain: This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized? - The Introduction should have 1) a concise but complete justification of the topic's importance both academically and practically, and 2) an explanation of the gaps both in research and practice. Please review appropriate literature in the Introduction, with the research question clearly arising from that review.
Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study. In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. See the following: Enhancing Digital Innovation for the Sustainable Transformation of Manufacturing Industry: A Pressure-State-Response System Framework to Perceptions of Digital Green Innovation and Its Performance for Green and Intelligent Manufacturing，https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10030072. The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in crowdsourcing collaborative innovation in future research. Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.
-Discussion
-Conclusion
-Managerial Implication
-Practical/Social Implications
-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature. Limitations and future research.
Author Response
Please kindly see the attached file for our replies to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors revised the manuscript. It looks much better now. However, the digitalization and greenization of industrial patents have not been fully reflected. The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in hydrogen supply chain in future research. See the following: Enhancing Digital Innovation for the Sustainable Transformation of Manufacturing Industry: A Pressure-State-Response System Framework to Perceptions of Digital Green Innovation and Its Performance for Green and Intelligent Manufacturing，https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10030072. Also other studies should be cited to increase many study topics in the future.
Author Response
Please kindly see the attached file for our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 14 : Hydrogen is not an energy! It is an energy vector, the same way as electricity.
Lines 14 and 15: This sentence has to be rewritten. You could you claim that hydrogen is the most important issue? What about climate change, hunger, human right?
Line 17: grammatically, you are writing that vehicles are generated by hydrogen!!
Line 18: researcher research!!! This sentence is badly constructed.
The whole abstract has to be rewritten. The English grammar is bad for almost all sentences.
Line 30: see my comment for line 14.
Line 31: Hydrogen is not necessarily ‘green’ It depends on how it is produced. Most of hydrogen today is produced by reforming which produce CO2.
Line 34: what is this sentence has the potential of [1].???
Lines 45 to 47: This sentence indicates that the methods of storing hydrogen includes a method of storing hydrogen!!!
I stop the review here. Basically, every sentence that I read up to here is badly constructed. It is not the duty of the reviewer to rewrite a paper. The authors should rewrite the whole paper in correct English grammar before submitting it again.
