Research on the Influence of Energy Utilization and Economic Development on Human Well-Being in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
I found your article very interesting and I am grateful for the opportunity to read it. I believe that the idea and subject of the research are very important and interesting for readers, and that the research results provide a lot of information and allow for further analysis.
I found a few elements that I think would improve your article. I think your article should be published in "Sustainability" after some minor changes and corrections.
The abstract clearly defines the subject and method of the research, as well as the results. This matters because it is not common. You know that a well-structured abstract should help popularize your article, and I think it will be the case here.
Introduction - The introduction should contain general information and research background. In my opinion, the analysis of the subject should be expanded - a high level of generality does not allow to introduce readers to the topic well. I would suggest that there you propose your vision of the text, its goals and ways of working with the topic.
Literature review - First, I think that it should be an independent chapter, so I propose to name it: 2. Literature review
The literature review contains important information regarding the current state of knowledge. The content should be the starting point for further analysis. In this section you will describe the situation in this field. In my opinion, there is no broader perspective and discussion on this subject in the context of other studies in this chapter. I believe that well-being can be described not only from an economic perspective. I think a broad proposition of factors that can affect well-being should be made at the beginning. In the next step, you should explain why you chose these.
The methodology and research results are well prepared and well presented
Discussion and Conclusions - To increase the relevance of the results, the discussion section should cover the differences and similarities between your findings and that of other scholars. The concluding part should be a short summary of the goals, methods and findings of the article. These chapters should be expanded. For me, this part (Discussion and Conclusions) is too limited, there is too modest reference to your assumptions, your thesis or research questions. This is where you should show references to your research and all formal aspects of your article. At the beginning and at the end, a description of research questions and research hypotheses should be included. In my opinion, the goals should be presented at the beginning and explained at the end. Conclusions should relate to each of your goals, not just the results of your research.
Despite my comments, I found your article very interesting and I appreciate your work.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting and it is adapt to this journal. The collaboration among several faculties is useful and I think that there is a great work behind the presentation of this work. However, while the presentation is nice in shape, there are few comments and/or suggestions to improve the manuscript.
-According to scientific standards, abbreviations cannot be used in the abstract, please correct it in the manuscript.
-Clarify better the innovation of this work in the abstract and in the main text.
-A short (more detailed) paragraph introducing the problem statement and actions taken (or a description of the study) should be included at the end of the Introduction section.
-Is it possible to put a unit of measure on the y-axis of Figures 4-7?
-Extend the conclusion with more general usability. What are the benefits of the results in a global context? Please explain this better in the manuscript.
-At the end of the study need to create a nomenclature table with units.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My personal assessment on the work is positive, owing to the relevant, timely and clarity of the study, as well as the focus of analysis. This paper addresses an very important topic of the Influence of Energy Utilization and Economic Development on Human Well-being.
So, the study is interesting and results may have political implications.
But I believe it is necessary to undertake a set of modifications, in order to improve the current manuscript, to fulfil the standards of quality in such a prestigious journal.
Below I explain them in detail.
The paper is divided into five parts: 1) Introduction; 2) Methodologies and data sources ; 3) Results; 4) Discussion; 5) Conclusions .
The Discussion and the conclusions is very short compared, for example, to the Research methods. Some practitioner readers of Sustainability wish to concentrate on the findings of the paper and the recommendations for policy.
The policy implications of the analysis need to be made much more clear. This is the section that is usually of most interest to the potential readers of the journal.
I would write more background about the topic so who are not familiar with the topic and read the investigation can understand it better.
To expand citations from other current papers that reviews the literature.
Because of the lack of a proper current literature review the results are not discussed in the context of previous findings.
It is necessary to expand the working hypotheses put forward and the specific research problems. This suggestion is made to assist less technically interested readers.
More information is required on the definition of the indicators selected and need further explanation in relation to the period covered by these indicators. Also, More information is required on the definition and properties of the Methods and indicators selected and need further explanation in relation to the period covered by these indicators.
To correct this, the authors need to include more theoretical underpinnings to their work and draw out the policy implications of the results much more clearly.
Because of the lack of a proper current literature review the results are not discussed in the context of previous findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
OBSERVATION
- At line 168, word "source" should be "sources"
- At line 296 the section title is separated by the contents (is on previous page).
- At figures 1,2 into the caption should be inserted the legend of each a & b tab
- At line 454 the Table 8 title is on different page than the table itself.
- At line 603 the figure 4 caption is on different page.
- The sections 3.42,3.43,.3.4.4, and 5 are on different pages comparing with the sections' content.
- The KMO test's values for some components are quite low, indicating that the sampling is mediocre. Only one overcame 0.7 value, a middling limit. An explanation for this should be provided
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors, the topic is well proposed but it has several issues. I don't understand the incredible length of the work. The methodology is clear, but several results are proposed and not always there is a clear relation. In addition the novelty of the paper is not well identified. In addition, there is no comparison with literature. Results are not well investigated. Your methodology provides robustness?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you very much for the opportunity to cooperate with you. It is not common that the response to suggestions affects so many elements. Thank you for your work, it is much easier to read and understand the results of your interesting survey.
In my opinion, the broader perspective is still missing here. I leave it to you to judge this, because you, the authors, know best what the scope of the analysis should be, what elements and relationships you want to show. So my critical opinion does not affect the assessment, nor does it change the fact that your article is simply good. As authors, you have your own opinion on this and it is your right to take into account additional suggestions from reviewers.
Despite this opinion, I would like to emphasize that your research is very interesting and the presentation and analysis of the results are correct. In effect I believe that the corrections are sufficient and recommend your article for publication in "Sustainability".
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors, I have stressed my previous comments in order to stimulate your response. You have perfectly implemented my suggestion. The work is suitable to be published. I suggest to present the relationship between sustainability and resilience (not only for this pandemic period) but the green energy has a great potential in this side (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520306212?via%3Dihub and https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6935) you can intercept potential citations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
