Ex-Ante Study of Biofuel Policies–Analyzing Policy-Induced Flexibility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editors,
Thanks for sharing this manuscript with me. My observations are summarized below:
- Topic is great and well suited to the journal.
- Abstract is interesting, however, please say a bit more about methodology applied. I would suggest to expand and say one or two more sentences about your findings.
- Introduction is nicely written. Probably supporting strong statements by referencing would be helpful.
- Section 2 on biofuel policy schemes serves as a background and is needed. I am just wondering if independent section between theory (Introduction) and methods is a right place. Is there any other place where this could be possibly shifted? Maybe to the Introduction as subsection? Or, to methods section as subsection?
- Methods are well developed which is great. Could you please provide a graphical scheme where we could see individual phases conducted? This might add a lot clarity to how the research was done. Section 3. I would rename this section traditionally for Methods and Data.
- Section 4. Please rename for Results. I would also suggest to give longer title for section 4.1.
- Short conclusion would be good to have here. Please add more about obvious limitations of the study (method, data, anything else?).
I think this a very nice paper with great publication potential. Some work still has to be done, on the other hand, when revised, this is going to be a nice piece of work.
I hope the authors will find my comments useful
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are happy that you find our work interesting and suitable for the journal. We find the comments constructive and feel that they improve the narrative of the paper. We carefully accommodated all the suggestions.
Abstract is now extended to accommodate details on the methods and conclusions.
More references are added to Introduction to support our statements.
We agree with Reviewer that Section 2 on biofuel policies is a background. It is merged to Introduction as its subsection.
The illustration of the procedures has now been added. Section 3 (now 2) is renamed to “Methods and data”. The subsection with numerical assumptions is moved to this section for consistency.
Section 4 is renamed to “Results” and a longer title is given to the subsection about assumptions.
Limitations of the study are added to Conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this paper. The topic of the paper is relevant. The work is interesting. The paper could be accepted for the publication after modifications.
1. The abstract should be improved and have to provide the paper's originality and value. Authors should changed it giving more concrete and important information to the reader. The abstract should be improved and have to background, basis aim or the principal objectives, hipotesis and scope of the investigation. Describe the paper's originality and value. The innovation of the paper is totally missing.
2. Research sample - authors should extend research - not enough data. There was little literature analyzed
3. Discussion section must compare obtained results with other authors.
4. Divide section 5 into two parts:
(5). Discussion (and Table 3)
(6). Conklusions
4. The conclusions must concisely summarise the main points of the paper. This part usually includes four compulsory elements:
(1) general summary of the article, its results and findings,
(2) implications and recommendations for practice,
(3) research limitations, and
(4) suggestions for future research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are glad to hear that the topic of our paper is deemed relevant and the work interesting.
- Done. We add more details to the abstract and specify the novelty of the paper.
- Our work is a forward-looking modeling exercise, which by research design is different from empirical studies that focus on historical data and employ such common stages as hypothesis formulation and data collection. More studies of this kind be found, for example, in this review, where the study design is also extensively discussed:
Trigeorgis, L., & Tsekrekos, A. E. (2018). Real options in operations research: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 270(1), 1-24.
We do, however, as Reviewer suggests, include more references to support our analysis.
- Our results are discussed in the context of existing literature in both topics:
(1) methodological (l. 410-451)
(2) biofuel policy (l. 452-463)
4. Done. Conclusions are now a separate section with suggested elements.
The language of the paper has been proofread.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has been significantly modified by the authors. The conclusions can still be broadened. In my opinion, the article can be approved for publication.
