A Review of Barriers and Enables in Demand Response Performance Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and provides a comprehensive review of the barriers and enablers associated with Demand Response (DR). The structure, chapter divisions, and coverage of topics are well-organized, making it an extremely valuable review paper. However, there are some areas where improvements could be made, as outlined below.

 

Detailed comments:

1. Given the wide range of points covered, readers may find it challenging to focus on the key messages. To facilitate a better understanding of the paper as a whole, it might be helpful to include a summary table that organizes the main points, perhaps by the "five main aspects" you've identified. While some terms and concepts are already organized in tables and figures, a summary table capturing the particularly important "points" could be beneficial for grasping the overall picture, even if it is not exhaustive.

2. Throughout the paper, there seems to be an abundance of general claims and a lack of quantitative discussion. The academic value of the paper could be enhanced by bolstering the analysis and discussion with numerical data, wherever possible.

3. In sections where various countries and programs are listed and introduced, a more in-depth analysis from a bird's-eye view on why these differences occur would be beneficial.

 

Typos:

- P5: Change "classification" -> "classifications"

- P6: Change "respons’s unpredictability" -> "response’s unpredictability"

- P19: Change "disturban" -> "disturbing"

- P24: Change "benefit to to" -> "benefit to"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We highly appreciate your comments and suggestions! We tried our best to took them all into consideration. Please, find attached the paper, where you can find the improvements we made based on your comments (highlighted with Track Changes).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written, and little English revision is needed. 

The paper needs careful polishing and English revision. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We highly appreciate your comments and suggestions! We corrected some language and punctuation mistakes, as well as typos we found. 

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, DSM, DR and their connections are introduced. Then, the authors analyzed the factors that influence the implementation and performance of DR, and described the implementation of each initiative, such as their barriers, enables and real examples. This manuscript is logical, well-organized, and well-referenced. Generally, this manuscript could be accepted but it should be revised following the suggestions:

1. The innovation of this paper is not clear, which needs to be emphasized in the article.

2. In the second part, the introduction of DSM is too long and is not very relevant to the theme of the article.

3. Adding more data into examples will make the argument more convincing.

4. In the third part, after analyzing each influencing factor, it should add a summary to make the article more clear.

5. The conclusion is not concise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We highly appreciate your comments and suggestions! We tried our best to took them all into consideration. Please, find attached the paper, where you can find the improvements we made based on your comments (highlighted with Track Changes).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx