The Legal Complexities of Processing and Protecting Personal Data in the Electricity Sector

Reviewer

Comment from reviewers

How it was addressed

1

The subject of the article is interesting, but the presentation is too extensive. In my opinion, definitions of well-known terms have been unnecessarily provided. Many thoughts have been repeated unnecessarily several times. 

The text was revised and adjusted to avoid repetitions and unnecessary definitions.

2

Section 3.3. There are much more energy businesses/services that smart metering can enable and that will be impacted by the GDPR. Some of the businesses/services not covered are the following: 1) the participation of aggregators of prosumers in wholesale electricity markets [1,2]. As described in [1,2], this new business model requires the exchange of data between prosumers and aggregators; 2) the coordination between smart grid agents to ensure secure power system operation [2,3]. As described in [2,3], prosumers may need to share information with DSOs, TSOs, aggregators, and market operators to ensure the secure operation of the power system; energy efficiency apps, such as [4,5], to promote the adoption of energy efficiency behaviours. These topics should be reviewed and discussed in the paper.

1] Robust optimization for day-ahead market participation of smart-home aggregators. Applied Energy 2018;229:433–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.120.

[2]  Network-constrained bidding optimization strategy for aggregators of prosumers. Energy 2020;207:118266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118266.

[3] Coordination between transmission and distribution system operators in the electricity sector: A conceptual framework. Utilities Policy 2018;50:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.011.

[4] A gamification platform to foster energy efficiency in office buildings. Energy and Buildings 2020;222:110101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110101.

It is important to note that the goal of this contribution was not to provide an exhaustive overview of all the innovations or business cases making use of smart meter data that may be impacted by the GDPR. What we wanted to highlight in section 3 is the growing need to process personal data in the electricity sector, which triggers the application of the GDPR in addition to the Recast Electricity Directive.

We clarified this in the revised version of the paper, acknowledging that there are other innovative businesses based on smart meter data, and added references to sources referring to them, including sources suggested by the reviewer.

2

Section 5.3. The DSO is not responsible for balancing demand and supply. This is the responsibility of the TSO. This must be corrected

Many thanks for spotting this. This has been corrected in the text.

2

Why did the authors only analyse P2P technologies in section 6? Technologies and services based on aggregators and mobile apps are not discussed in section 6. However, they are discussed throughout the paper.

P2P trading is only an example used in the paper to illustrate that certain innovations/emerging businesses might make use of technology that is not (yet) fully compatible with the GDPR and that this is something that should be addressed by policymakers and/or by the industry when designing the technologies.

3

… the purpose of the article is not clearly stated. The purpose of the article can be guessed from the abstract. The purpose of the article should be in the introduction, where its obvious place is. The purpose of the article as presented in the abstract and in the introduction should read the same. The lack of a clear purpose creates confusion for the reader.

Introduction is effective, clear and well organized. This section introduce and put into perspective what follows. The literature selection is also correct. The scope and manner of using the literature on the subject (in this section) are not objectionable. But I suggest develop a background indicating a research gap, and present what is novel and why it is significant.

The general structure of the reviewed article is correct. The order of the individual subsections and the content presented in them are also correct. But the Authors did not formulate research questions or hypotheses, which decreases the scientific value of the article.

In addition, the section on research methodology have to be developed. In my opinion, developing the second section (by presenting the research problem, presenting the assumptions of the research process and the description of the applied research methods and tools) is necessary for the scientific values ​​of the reviewed article. There is also a lack of definition of the research period, or at least an indication of the period in which the legal status was analysed.

In the reviewed article the description of the research methodology is contained in one long compound sentence. This contributes to the low scientific value of the study.
Furthermore, it is first necessary to clarify what the doctrinal method actually is. In the literature on methodology, one encounters divergence as to what is being studied through the doctrinal method.

·        The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified/sharpened in the Introduction in the revised version.

·        A research question was already present in the original Introduction. We have given it more prominence in the revised version.

·        The methodology section has been expanded to explain better what doctrinal legal research entails, and the approach followed in the submitted paper.

·        A note regarding the date until which legal developments have been followed has been included in the methodology section.

Reviewer 4

1. The abstract must contain the main purpose of the paper, the research method used in the research and the main contributions.
2. It would be very useful to add in the "Introduction" section the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the research.
3. The introduction should specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

·        1, The abstract has been edited to reflect the main purpose of the paper, the research method and main contributions.

·        2 and 3: The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified in the Introduction in the revised version.

Reviewer 4

I recommend the authors to modify the titles of some paragraphs that have identical names although they have different content, namely: 4.1 and 5.1; 4.2 and 5.2; 4.3 and 5.3; 4.5 and 5.5; 6.1 with Introduction from the beginning of the paper.

Thanks for this suggestion, the headings have been changed to avoid repetitions

Reviewer 5

- I would also like to see a well-developed discussion comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature and followed by a subsection on “Implications for practice”.

Existing literature on the topic has been explicitly mentioned in the introduction and it has been indicated that this contribution builds upon it and adds to it.

A note on the relevance of this research beyond academic readership (for practitioners, regulators, etc) has been included in the introduction.

Reviewer 5

- The entire article is chaotically formatted and edited. For instance, there are used different fonts and font sizes, additional spaces between rows (paragraphs).

Thanks for spotting this, we have tried to fix it.

Reviewer

Comment from reviewers

How it was addressed

1

The subject of the article is interesting, but the presentation is too extensive. In my opinion, definitions of well-known terms have been unnecessarily provided. Many thoughts have been repeated unnecessarily several times. 

The text was revised and adjusted to avoid repetitions and unnecessary definitions.

2

Section 3.3. There are much more energy businesses/services that smart metering can enable and that will be impacted by the GDPR. Some of the businesses/services not covered are the following: 1) the participation of aggregators of prosumers in wholesale electricity markets [1,2]. As described in [1,2], this new business model requires the exchange of data between prosumers and aggregators; 2) the coordination between smart grid agents to ensure secure power system operation [2,3]. As described in [2,3], prosumers may need to share information with DSOs, TSOs, aggregators, and market operators to ensure the secure operation of the power system; energy efficiency apps, such as [4,5], to promote the adoption of energy efficiency behaviours. These topics should be reviewed and discussed in the paper.

1] Robust optimization for day-ahead market participation of smart-home aggregators. Applied Energy 2018;229:433–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.120.

[2]  Network-constrained bidding optimization strategy for aggregators of prosumers. Energy 2020;207:118266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118266.

[3] Coordination between transmission and distribution system operators in the electricity sector: A conceptual framework. Utilities Policy 2018;50:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.011.

[4] A gamification platform to foster energy efficiency in office buildings. Energy and Buildings 2020;222:110101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110101.

It is important to note that the goal of this contribution was not to provide an exhaustive overview of all the innovations or business cases making use of smart meter data that may be impacted by the GDPR. What we wanted to highlight in section 3 is the growing need to process personal data in the electricity sector, which triggers the application of the GDPR in addition to the Recast Electricity Directive.

We clarified this in the revised version of the paper, acknowledging that there are other innovative businesses based on smart meter data, and added references to sources referring to them, including sources suggested by the reviewer.

2

Section 5.3. The DSO is not responsible for balancing demand and supply. This is the responsibility of the TSO. This must be corrected

Many thanks for spotting this. This has been corrected in the text.

2

Why did the authors only analyse P2P technologies in section 6? Technologies and services based on aggregators and mobile apps are not discussed in section 6. However, they are discussed throughout the paper.

P2P trading is only an example used in the paper to illustrate that certain innovations/emerging businesses might make use of technology that is not (yet) fully compatible with the GDPR and that this is something that should be addressed by policymakers and/or by the industry when designing the technologies.

3

… the purpose of the article is not clearly stated. The purpose of the article can be guessed from the abstract. The purpose of the article should be in the introduction, where its obvious place is. The purpose of the article as presented in the abstract and in the introduction should read the same. The lack of a clear purpose creates confusion for the reader.

Introduction is effective, clear and well organized. This section introduce and put into perspective what follows. The literature selection is also correct. The scope and manner of using the literature on the subject (in this section) are not objectionable. But I suggest develop a background indicating a research gap, and present what is novel and why it is significant.

The general structure of the reviewed article is correct. The order of the individual subsections and the content presented in them are also correct. But the Authors did not formulate research questions or hypotheses, which decreases the scientific value of the article.

In addition, the section on research methodology have to be developed. In my opinion, developing the second section (by presenting the research problem, presenting the assumptions of the research process and the description of the applied research methods and tools) is necessary for the scientific values ​​of the reviewed article. There is also a lack of definition of the research period, or at least an indication of the period in which the legal status was analysed.

In the reviewed article the description of the research methodology is contained in one long compound sentence. This contributes to the low scientific value of the study.
Furthermore, it is first necessary to clarify what the doctrinal method actually is. In the literature on methodology, one encounters divergence as to what is being studied through the doctrinal method.

·        The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified/sharpened in the Introduction in the revised version.

·        A research question was already present in the original Introduction. We have given it more prominence in the revised version.

·        The methodology section has been expanded to explain better what doctrinal legal research entails, and the approach followed in the submitted paper.

·        A note regarding the date until which legal developments have been followed has been included in the methodology section.

Reviewer 4

1. The abstract must contain the main purpose of the paper, the research method used in the research and the main contributions.
2. It would be very useful to add in the "Introduction" section the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the research.
3. The introduction should specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

·        1, The abstract has been edited to reflect the main purpose of the paper, the research method and main contributions.

·        2 and 3: The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified in the Introduction in the revised version.

Reviewer 4

I recommend the authors to modify the titles of some paragraphs that have identical names although they have different content, namely: 4.1 and 5.1; 4.2 and 5.2; 4.3 and 5.3; 4.5 and 5.5; 6.1 with Introduction from the beginning of the paper.

Thanks for this suggestion, the headings have been changed to avoid repetitions

Reviewer 5

- I would also like to see a well-developed discussion comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature and followed by a subsection on “Implications for practice”.

Existing literature on the topic has been explicitly mentioned in the introduction and it has been indicated that this contribution builds upon it and adds to it.

A note on the relevance of this research beyond academic readership (for practitioners, regulators, etc) has been included in the introduction.

Reviewer 5

- The entire article is chaotically formatted and edited. For instance, there are used different fonts and font sizes, additional spaces between rows (paragraphs).

Thanks for spotting this, we have tried to fix it.

Reviewer

Comment from reviewers

How it was addressed

1

The subject of the article is interesting, but the presentation is too extensive. In my opinion, definitions of well-known terms have been unnecessarily provided. Many thoughts have been repeated unnecessarily several times. 

The text was revised and adjusted to avoid repetitions and unnecessary definitions.

2

Section 3.3. There are much more energy businesses/services that smart metering can enable and that will be impacted by the GDPR. Some of the businesses/services not covered are the following: 1) the participation of aggregators of prosumers in wholesale electricity markets [1,2]. As described in [1,2], this new business model requires the exchange of data between prosumers and aggregators; 2) the coordination between smart grid agents to ensure secure power system operation [2,3]. As described in [2,3], prosumers may need to share information with DSOs, TSOs, aggregators, and market operators to ensure the secure operation of the power system; energy efficiency apps, such as [4,5], to promote the adoption of energy efficiency behaviours. These topics should be reviewed and discussed in the paper.

1] Robust optimization for day-ahead market participation of smart-home aggregators. Applied Energy 2018;229:433–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.120.

[2]  Network-constrained bidding optimization strategy for aggregators of prosumers. Energy 2020;207:118266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118266.

[3] Coordination between transmission and distribution system operators in the electricity sector: A conceptual framework. Utilities Policy 2018;50:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.011.

[4] A gamification platform to foster energy efficiency in office buildings. Energy and Buildings 2020;222:110101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110101.

It is important to note that the goal of this contribution was not to provide an exhaustive overview of all the innovations or business cases making use of smart meter data that may be impacted by the GDPR. What we wanted to highlight in section 3 is the growing need to process personal data in the electricity sector, which triggers the application of the GDPR in addition to the Recast Electricity Directive.

We clarified this in the revised version of the paper, acknowledging that there are other innovative businesses based on smart meter data, and added references to sources referring to them, including sources suggested by the reviewer.

2

Section 5.3. The DSO is not responsible for balancing demand and supply. This is the responsibility of the TSO. This must be corrected

Many thanks for spotting this. This has been corrected in the text.

2

Why did the authors only analyse P2P technologies in section 6? Technologies and services based on aggregators and mobile apps are not discussed in section 6. However, they are discussed throughout the paper.

P2P trading is only an example used in the paper to illustrate that certain innovations/emerging businesses might make use of technology that is not (yet) fully compatible with the GDPR and that this is something that should be addressed by policymakers and/or by the industry when designing the technologies.

3

… the purpose of the article is not clearly stated. The purpose of the article can be guessed from the abstract. The purpose of the article should be in the introduction, where its obvious place is. The purpose of the article as presented in the abstract and in the introduction should read the same. The lack of a clear purpose creates confusion for the reader.

Introduction is effective, clear and well organized. This section introduce and put into perspective what follows. The literature selection is also correct. The scope and manner of using the literature on the subject (in this section) are not objectionable. But I suggest develop a background indicating a research gap, and present what is novel and why it is significant.

The general structure of the reviewed article is correct. The order of the individual subsections and the content presented in them are also correct. But the Authors did not formulate research questions or hypotheses, which decreases the scientific value of the article.

In addition, the section on research methodology have to be developed. In my opinion, developing the second section (by presenting the research problem, presenting the assumptions of the research process and the description of the applied research methods and tools) is necessary for the scientific values ​​of the reviewed article. There is also a lack of definition of the research period, or at least an indication of the period in which the legal status was analysed.

In the reviewed article the description of the research methodology is contained in one long compound sentence. This contributes to the low scientific value of the study.
Furthermore, it is first necessary to clarify what the doctrinal method actually is. In the literature on methodology, one encounters divergence as to what is being studied through the doctrinal method.

·        The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified/sharpened in the Introduction in the revised version.

·        A research question was already present in the original Introduction. We have given it more prominence in the revised version.

·        The methodology section has been expanded to explain better what doctrinal legal research entails, and the approach followed in the submitted paper.

·        A note regarding the date until which legal developments have been followed has been included in the methodology section.

Reviewer 4

1. The abstract must contain the main purpose of the paper, the research method used in the research and the main contributions.
2. It would be very useful to add in the "Introduction" section the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the research.
3. The introduction should specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

·        1, The abstract has been edited to reflect the main purpose of the paper, the research method and main contributions.

·        2 and 3: The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified in the Introduction in the revised version.

Reviewer 4

I recommend the authors to modify the titles of some paragraphs that have identical names although they have different content, namely: 4.1 and 5.1; 4.2 and 5.2; 4.3 and 5.3; 4.5 and 5.5; 6.1 with Introduction from the beginning of the paper.

Thanks for this suggestion, the headings have been changed to avoid repetitions

Reviewer 5

- I would also like to see a well-developed discussion comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature and followed by a subsection on “Implications for practice”.

Existing literature on the topic has been explicitly mentioned in the introduction and it has been indicated that this contribution builds upon it and adds to it.

A note on the relevance of this research beyond academic readership (for practitioners, regulators, etc) has been included in the introduction.

Reviewer 5

- The entire article is chaotically formatted and edited. For instance, there are used different fonts and font sizes, additional spaces between rows (paragraphs).

Thanks for spotting this, we have tried to fix it.

Reviewer

Comment from reviewers

How it was addressed

1

The subject of the article is interesting, but the presentation is too extensive. In my opinion, definitions of well-known terms have been unnecessarily provided. Many thoughts have been repeated unnecessarily several times. 

The text was revised and adjusted to avoid repetitions and unnecessary definitions.

2

Section 3.3. There are much more energy businesses/services that smart metering can enable and that will be impacted by the GDPR. Some of the businesses/services not covered are the following: 1) the participation of aggregators of prosumers in wholesale electricity markets [1,2]. As described in [1,2], this new business model requires the exchange of data between prosumers and aggregators; 2) the coordination between smart grid agents to ensure secure power system operation [2,3]. As described in [2,3], prosumers may need to share information with DSOs, TSOs, aggregators, and market operators to ensure the secure operation of the power system; energy efficiency apps, such as [4,5], to promote the adoption of energy efficiency behaviours. These topics should be reviewed and discussed in the paper.

1] Robust optimization for day-ahead market participation of smart-home aggregators. Applied Energy 2018;229:433–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.120.

[2]  Network-constrained bidding optimization strategy for aggregators of prosumers. Energy 2020;207:118266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118266.

[3] Coordination between transmission and distribution system operators in the electricity sector: A conceptual framework. Utilities Policy 2018;50:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.011.

[4] A gamification platform to foster energy efficiency in office buildings. Energy and Buildings 2020;222:110101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110101.

It is important to note that the goal of this contribution was not to provide an exhaustive overview of all the innovations or business cases making use of smart meter data that may be impacted by the GDPR. What we wanted to highlight in section 3 is the growing need to process personal data in the electricity sector, which triggers the application of the GDPR in addition to the Recast Electricity Directive.

We clarified this in the revised version of the paper, acknowledging that there are other innovative businesses based on smart meter data, and added references to sources referring to them, including sources suggested by the reviewer.

2

Section 5.3. The DSO is not responsible for balancing demand and supply. This is the responsibility of the TSO. This must be corrected

Many thanks for spotting this. This has been corrected in the text.

2

Why did the authors only analyse P2P technologies in section 6? Technologies and services based on aggregators and mobile apps are not discussed in section 6. However, they are discussed throughout the paper.

P2P trading is only an example used in the paper to illustrate that certain innovations/emerging businesses might make use of technology that is not (yet) fully compatible with the GDPR and that this is something that should be addressed by policymakers and/or by the industry when designing the technologies.

3

… the purpose of the article is not clearly stated. The purpose of the article can be guessed from the abstract. The purpose of the article should be in the introduction, where its obvious place is. The purpose of the article as presented in the abstract and in the introduction should read the same. The lack of a clear purpose creates confusion for the reader.

Introduction is effective, clear and well organized. This section introduce and put into perspective what follows. The literature selection is also correct. The scope and manner of using the literature on the subject (in this section) are not objectionable. But I suggest develop a background indicating a research gap, and present what is novel and why it is significant.

The general structure of the reviewed article is correct. The order of the individual subsections and the content presented in them are also correct. But the Authors did not formulate research questions or hypotheses, which decreases the scientific value of the article.

In addition, the section on research methodology have to be developed. In my opinion, developing the second section (by presenting the research problem, presenting the assumptions of the research process and the description of the applied research methods and tools) is necessary for the scientific values ​​of the reviewed article. There is also a lack of definition of the research period, or at least an indication of the period in which the legal status was analysed.

In the reviewed article the description of the research methodology is contained in one long compound sentence. This contributes to the low scientific value of the study.
Furthermore, it is first necessary to clarify what the doctrinal method actually is. In the literature on methodology, one encounters divergence as to what is being studied through the doctrinal method.

·        The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified/sharpened in the Introduction in the revised version.

·        A research question was already present in the original Introduction. We have given it more prominence in the revised version.

·        The methodology section has been expanded to explain better what doctrinal legal research entails, and the approach followed in the submitted paper.

·        A note regarding the date until which legal developments have been followed has been included in the methodology section.

Reviewer 4

1. The abstract must contain the main purpose of the paper, the research method used in the research and the main contributions.
2. It would be very useful to add in the "Introduction" section the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the research.
3. The introduction should specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

·        1, The abstract has been edited to reflect the main purpose of the paper, the research method and main contributions.

·        2 and 3: The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified in the Introduction in the revised version.

Reviewer 4

I recommend the authors to modify the titles of some paragraphs that have identical names although they have different content, namely: 4.1 and 5.1; 4.2 and 5.2; 4.3 and 5.3; 4.5 and 5.5; 6.1 with Introduction from the beginning of the paper.

Thanks for this suggestion, the headings have been changed to avoid repetitions

Reviewer 5

- I would also like to see a well-developed discussion comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature and followed by a subsection on “Implications for practice”.

Existing literature on the topic has been explicitly mentioned in the introduction and it has been indicated that this contribution builds upon it and adds to it.

A note on the relevance of this research beyond academic readership (for practitioners, regulators, etc) has been included in the introduction.

Reviewer 5

- The entire article is chaotically formatted and edited. For instance, there are used different fonts and font sizes, additional spaces between rows (paragraphs).

Thanks for spotting this, we have tried to fix it.

Reviewer

Comment from reviewers

How it was addressed

1

The subject of the article is interesting, but the presentation is too extensive. In my opinion, definitions of well-known terms have been unnecessarily provided. Many thoughts have been repeated unnecessarily several times. 

The text was revised and adjusted to avoid repetitions and unnecessary definitions.

2

Section 3.3. There are much more energy businesses/services that smart metering can enable and that will be impacted by the GDPR. Some of the businesses/services not covered are the following: 1) the participation of aggregators of prosumers in wholesale electricity markets [1,2]. As described in [1,2], this new business model requires the exchange of data between prosumers and aggregators; 2) the coordination between smart grid agents to ensure secure power system operation [2,3]. As described in [2,3], prosumers may need to share information with DSOs, TSOs, aggregators, and market operators to ensure the secure operation of the power system; energy efficiency apps, such as [4,5], to promote the adoption of energy efficiency behaviours. These topics should be reviewed and discussed in the paper.

1] Robust optimization for day-ahead market participation of smart-home aggregators. Applied Energy 2018;229:433–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.120.

[2]  Network-constrained bidding optimization strategy for aggregators of prosumers. Energy 2020;207:118266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118266.

[3] Coordination between transmission and distribution system operators in the electricity sector: A conceptual framework. Utilities Policy 2018;50:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.011.

[4] A gamification platform to foster energy efficiency in office buildings. Energy and Buildings 2020;222:110101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110101.

It is important to note that the goal of this contribution was not to provide an exhaustive overview of all the innovations or business cases making use of smart meter data that may be impacted by the GDPR. What we wanted to highlight in section 3 is the growing need to process personal data in the electricity sector, which triggers the application of the GDPR in addition to the Recast Electricity Directive.

We clarified this in the revised version of the paper, acknowledging that there are other innovative businesses based on smart meter data, and added references to sources referring to them, including sources suggested by the reviewer.

2

Section 5.3. The DSO is not responsible for balancing demand and supply. This is the responsibility of the TSO. This must be corrected

Many thanks for spotting this. This has been corrected in the text.

2

Why did the authors only analyse P2P technologies in section 6? Technologies and services based on aggregators and mobile apps are not discussed in section 6. However, they are discussed throughout the paper.

P2P trading is only an example used in the paper to illustrate that certain innovations/emerging businesses might make use of technology that is not (yet) fully compatible with the GDPR and that this is something that should be addressed by policymakers and/or by the industry when designing the technologies.

3

… the purpose of the article is not clearly stated. The purpose of the article can be guessed from the abstract. The purpose of the article should be in the introduction, where its obvious place is. The purpose of the article as presented in the abstract and in the introduction should read the same. The lack of a clear purpose creates confusion for the reader.

Introduction is effective, clear and well organized. This section introduce and put into perspective what follows. The literature selection is also correct. The scope and manner of using the literature on the subject (in this section) are not objectionable. But I suggest develop a background indicating a research gap, and present what is novel and why it is significant.

The general structure of the reviewed article is correct. The order of the individual subsections and the content presented in them are also correct. But the Authors did not formulate research questions or hypotheses, which decreases the scientific value of the article.

In addition, the section on research methodology have to be developed. In my opinion, developing the second section (by presenting the research problem, presenting the assumptions of the research process and the description of the applied research methods and tools) is necessary for the scientific values ​​of the reviewed article. There is also a lack of definition of the research period, or at least an indication of the period in which the legal status was analysed.

In the reviewed article the description of the research methodology is contained in one long compound sentence. This contributes to the low scientific value of the study.
Furthermore, it is first necessary to clarify what the doctrinal method actually is. In the literature on methodology, one encounters divergence as to what is being studied through the doctrinal method.

·        The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified/sharpened in the Introduction in the revised version.

·        A research question was already present in the original Introduction. We have given it more prominence in the revised version.

·        The methodology section has been expanded to explain better what doctrinal legal research entails, and the approach followed in the submitted paper.

·        A note regarding the date until which legal developments have been followed has been included in the methodology section.

Reviewer 4

1. The abstract must contain the main purpose of the paper, the research method used in the research and the main contributions.
2. It would be very useful to add in the "Introduction" section the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the research.
3. The introduction should specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

·        1, The abstract has been edited to reflect the main purpose of the paper, the research method and main contributions.

·        2 and 3: The purpose, contribution and novelty of the paper have been clarified in the Introduction in the revised version.

Reviewer 4

I recommend the authors to modify the titles of some paragraphs that have identical names although they have different content, namely: 4.1 and 5.1; 4.2 and 5.2; 4.3 and 5.3; 4.5 and 5.5; 6.1 with Introduction from the beginning of the paper.

Thanks for this suggestion, the headings have been changed to avoid repetitions

Reviewer 5

- I would also like to see a well-developed discussion comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature and followed by a subsection on “Implications for practice”.

Existing literature on the topic has been explicitly mentioned in the introduction and it has been indicated that this contribution builds upon it and adds to it.

A note on the relevance of this research beyond academic readership (for practitioners, regulators, etc) has been included in the introduction.

Reviewer 5

- The entire article is chaotically formatted and edited. For instance, there are used different fonts and font sizes, additional spaces between rows (paragraphs).

Thanks for spotting this, we have tried to fix it.