Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis of a Stand-Alone Photovoltaic System for Combined Aquaponics on Drylands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have blended emotions about this paper.
On the positive side:
1) The paper reports on plenty of good-quality, professional work.
2) The exploration idea, the trial plan, the methods utilized, and the outcomes delivered all look fine (and conceivably publishable).
On the less-positive side:
1) The manuscript makes the impression of a draft and not a final copy. I made quite a few on the PDF (attached). To mention a typical problem – many abbreviations are repeatedly defined, some are not defined at all.
2) The writing is verbose and vague: it should be shorter and always specific.
3) The general introduction isn't superior to fair. In particular, I think, the authors need the assistance of a native English speaker to edit their original copy: this would explain a large number of the indistinct articulations.
4) Moreover, the "Results and Discussions" segment isn't significantly more than an introduction of the outcomes: it should be broadened and discussed in depth by comparing the findings with those published in the scientific literature.
In summary: this is a valuable work, important from several points of view. To make it publishable, the manuscript needs to be carefully rewritten in a concise, clear form. If this happens I will be glad to review it again.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Thank you very much for the comments and suggestion on the manuscript, evaluation of the paper, reference and grammar, writing issues.
These are very essential for improving our paper. Based on your comments and suggestion, careful modifications have been made to the manuscript highlighted in yellow color. All suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, this kind of solutions are needed to produce food, especially in the future. Therefore, this study definitely deserves attention. However, the MS lacked some important information to clarify the study appropriately. Clearly, the authors seem to be more into power generation systems than in aquaculture. In order to present the studied systems clearly, all the processes need to be explained thoroughly. Please explain the aquaculture and hydroponic parts more in detail.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
I am pleased to submit a revised manuscript (Ms. ID: sustainability-951139) entitled "Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis of a Stand-Alone Photovoltaic System for Combined Aquaponics on Drylands".
Thank you very much for the comments on the manuscript, evaluation of the paper, reference and grammar. I really appreciate you for your professional
suggestion on aquaculture and hydroponics. These are very essential for improving our paper. Based on your comments and suggestion, careful modifications have been made to the manuscript highlighted in yellow color.
All suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Best Regads,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I carefully read the manuscript following the extensive revisions by the authors. My conclusion is that all my questions and comments were properly addressed and the paper has improved significantly: now it is acceptable for publication in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
We are quite glad that the manuscript will be acceptable for publication.We really appreciate all of your insightful comments and queries during the reviews.
Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve our manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
After the modifications, the MS has greatly been improved. Still I found some minor issues that need to be corrected before it is suitable for publishing (please see the attachment).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
We really appreciate all of your insightful comments and queries during the second review. Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve our manuscript. Based on your comments, careful modifications have been made to the manuscript. All suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
We attached the revised manuscript as a Word file.
Please see the attachment.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
