SolarView: Georgia Solar Adoption in Context
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This took a lot of work - and I looked at the final product and it did work -there are however several areas that this manuscript could be improved.
second paragraph - not that I disagree with anything that is said here - but there is no support for any of the statements in the lit. Overall the literature review for this paper is really weak - there has been a lot done with mapping potential for PV, for helping utility planning for example, that would also serve the same purpose (for example studies looking at the financial capacity for people locally to grid defect have nearly the same data) -- I suggest - supporting this paragraph and adding another with what has already been done.
Fig 1 - zoom in on GA
In section 4 - you must include the hyperlink somewhere to Social
Energy Atlas SolarView web portal
Fig 3 needs to be much larger so people can actually see it.
It is not clear at all how one could use this data set to drive greater PV adoption at the local level - would you please explicitly explain how someone could use this data and why those of us not in Ga would want to replicate your results for our own regions?
I checked the github account and your data was there - is the code also open source and available for your application so others could use it to say do their own state? If not why not?
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank this reviewer for their valuable comments and feedback. Please find below our itemized response to their comments:
second paragraph - not that I disagree with anything that is said here - but there is no support for any of the statements in the lit. Overall the literature review for this paper is really weak - there has been a lot done with mapping potential for PV, for helping utility planning for example, that would also serve the same purpose (for example studies looking at the financial capacity for people locally to grid defect have nearly the same data) -- I suggest - supporting this paragraph and adding another with what has already been done.
We have added a revised Summary section for this Data Descriptor that provides a more substantial lit review.
Fig 1 - zoom in on GA
Since the original image from our submission was one generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, to address this issue, we were able to access one of their other renderings of this data that shows the State of Georgia exclusively and have used that instead.
In section 4 - you must include the hyperlink somewhere to Social Energy Atlas SolarView web portal
We have added a URL for this web application at line 214.
Fig 3 needs to be much larger so people can actually see it.
All images have been increased in size. This rendering error was an artifact of using the LaTex template.
It is not clear at all how one could use this data set to drive greater PV adoption at the local level - would you please explicitly explain how someone could use this data and why those of us not in Ga would want to replicate your results for our own regions?
We have addressed this by adding a paragraph in the research notes that outlines how the data and methods employed could be employed for analysis on the State of Georgia and beyond (lines 197 - 207).
I checked the github account and your data was there - is the code also open source and available for your application so others could use it to say do their own state? If not why not?
We have provided all of the files comprising the database for which the Data Descriptor is describing. Concerning the search interface that is located at http://sea.galib.uga.edu/solarview, it is currently part of one of the co-author's (who is a PhD student) dissertation research. As a result, he needs the code to be embargoed for the time being. That being said, he has agreed to add the interface code to this repository when his dissertation is also made public.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a model for analysing how existing adoption trends enable/limit conversation at the scale of local governance.
The following changes are suggested in an attempt to improve the document:
The figures are not seen properly, please consider enlarging their size.
References should be in order of appearance, but it jumps from 13 to 15, 14 to 18, 18 to 16. It must be revised.
In line 148 missing a reference, check it.
I do not understand what affects the study or its relation to the parameters considered in table 5, they should explain it in more detail.
There is a description of the parameters considered in detail, but the document lacks a detailed explanation of the model developed and results.
The document has been put through plagiarism detection software, giving a 10% result. Even considering it doesn't affect the main content of the document, authors should consider this and try to correct the conflicting sentences. Report is attached.
The data are not original since they were published before, reference [4].
The authors have already published a document very similar to the one presented, they should explain in detail the differences of the contributions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank this reviewer for their valuable comments and feedback. Please find below our itemized response to their comments:
The figures are not seen properly, please consider enlarging their size.
All images have been increased in size. This rendering error was an artifact of using the LaTex template.
References should be in order of appearance, but it jumps from 13 to 15, 14 to 18, 18 to 16. It must be revised.
The order of the references has been revised.
In line 148 missing a reference, check it.
That indication of a citation was a typo. It has been removed from the text.
I do not understand what affects the study or its relation to the parameters considered in table 5, they should explain it in more detail.
We added more explicit descriptions at lines 126-129.
There is a description of the parameters considered in detail, but the document lacks a detailed explanation of the model developed and results.
As this is a Data Descriptor, the model developed and results are available in our article that was published in Sustainability. We have added a sentence referencing where the analysis and conclusions drawn from this database can be found at lines 197-199.
The document has been put through plagiarism detection software, giving a 10% result. Even considering it doesn't affect the main content of the document, authors should consider this and try to correct the conflicting sentences. Report is attached.
Modifications have been made to the Abstract and Summary sections of the text to create a marked difference between the language that is shared between this Data Descriptor and the Research Article to which it is linked that has been published in Sustainability.
The data are not original since they were published before, reference [4].
This submission is a Data Descriptor for that specific article. It was MDPI's suggestion at the submission of that article that we decided to submit a Data Descriptor in this journal--rather than a Research Article in this journal.
The authors have already published a document very similar to the one presented, they should explain in detail the differences of the contributions.
The previously referenced Sustainability article does not describe in detail how the dataset was created, nor its variables or structure--it makes the theoretical argument for why this database was necessary, as well as analyzing the results. We felt that the Data Descriptor format in Data was a much more appropriate place for disseminate these granular details regarding the construction of the database itself.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all of my concerns can publish as is.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made the suggested changes.
