Peer-Review Record
Measure of Customer Satisfaction in the Residential Electricity Distribution Service Using Structural Equation Modeling
Energies 2022, 15(3), 746; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030746
by
Agenor S. Santos Neto 1,2,*
, Marcio R. C. Reis 1,2, António Paulo Coimbra 3, Julio C. V. Soares 4 and Wesley P. Calixto 1,2,*
, Marcio R. C. Reis 1,2, António Paulo Coimbra 3, Julio C. V. Soares 4 and Wesley P. Calixto 1,2,*Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Energies 2022, 15(3), 746; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030746
Submission received: 17 December 2021
/
Revised: 18 January 2022
/
Accepted: 19 January 2022
/
Published: 20 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Energy Market and Power System Modelling and Optimization)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- There is too much repetition and no focus.
- The article is more like an instruction manual for evaluating the service quality of power enterprises than a journal article.
- The theoretical application of the paper is correct, the results are credible, and the explanation of the results is correct. However, the expression is too redundant and can be compressed to 15-20 pages.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study used structural equation modeling with partial least squares and based on covariance to assess the satisfaction of residential electricity consumers. Although, the paper is quite good, I have several comments as follows:
- Several typo errors should be eliminated (i.e., Section 2 should be "theoretical", not "Teoretical"); Table 3 should be edited.
- The section 2 "Theoretical background" should be concise.
- The quantitative description and analysis should be shorten. The structural equation modeling with partial least squares is not a novel method. The authors should put more effort to discussion and implication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the interpretation of many of the results can still be compressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
