Energy Sustainability—Rebounds Revisited Using Axiomatic Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have carried out investigation on the study on: Energy Sustainability – rebounds revisited, before acceptance the following MINOR comments should be addressed.
Title: 1. Please rewrite the title in accordance with the theme of the paper.
- Avoid abbreviations in keywords and provide a nomenclature table
Abstract: 1. Please avoid using abbreviations in the Abstract or use abbreviations with full-form, Mention it first time, then abbreviations can be used.
- Please report the findings in the abstract, what is the enhancement?
Introduction: please check the grammar, typos throughout the introduction section, check the similarity index in the introduction section.
- Check and refer this studies to improve the introduction section, A case study on the electrical energy auditing and saving techniques in an educational institution (IMCO, Sohar, Oman); Effect of nano-graphene oxide and n-butanol fuel additives blended with diesel—Nigella sativa biodiesel fuel emulsion on diesel engine characteristics; Study of diesel engine characteristics by adding nanosized zinc oxide and diethyl ether additives in Mahua biodiesel–diesel fuel blend.
- Please clearly add the Novelty statement at the end of the introduction section. Please add why the study is important and what are the outcomes of the study.
Material and Methodology:
- Please add the standard deviation and uncertainty analysis of the study.
- Please check and refer these studies for uncertainty, Effect of Sr@ ZnO nanoparticles and Ricinus communis biodiesel-diesel fuel blends on modified CRDI diesel engine characteristics.
- Take care of subscripts and superscripts in Table 1
Results and discussion
- Please improve the overall R and D section, please add previous studies to support your claims.
- Improve quality of the graph.
Conclusion:
Please check the future scope and add relevance of the study, it will be better if you can add the conclusion in points for better understanding.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you so much for your appreciation, comments, and suggestions. We benefit a lot from your review. All changes were introduced. Twelve extra references were presented to create a more solid background. Moreover, the discussion has been improved.
Reviewer 1.
Rev1:The authors have carried out investigation on the study on: Energy Sustainability – rebounds revisited, before acceptance the following MINOR comments should be addressed.
Answer: Thank you so much for your appreciation. We introduced all suggested modifications.
Rev1: Title: 1. Please rewrite the title in accordance with the theme of the paper.
Answer: We changed the title to be following the theme to “Energy Sustainability – rebounds revisited using Axiomatic Design”
Rev1: Avoid abbreviations in keywords and provide a nomenclature table (2)
Answer: Abbreviations and keyword checked. A Nomenclature table is now in Appendix A.
Rev1: Abstract: 1. Please avoid using abbreviations in the Abstract or use abbreviations with full-form, Mention it first time, then abbreviations can be used.
Please report the findings in the abstract, what is the enhancement?
Answer: Mentions in abstract checked. The last phrase of the Abstract has been reviewed to highlight the enhancement – “The novelty of this approach is to define a system model for Energy Sustainability, from a literature review, in the frame of AD, enhancing the need to go toward a circular economy and renewable energies”.
Rev1: Introduction: please check the grammar, typos throughout the introduction section, check the similarity index in the introduction section.
Answer: English and grammar checked in all sections of the document. We evaluated the similarity index of the introduction using the Grammarly Premium– no issues were found. The overall similarity index for the entire document is 4%.
Rev1: Check and refer this studies to improve the introduction section
- A case study on the electrical energy auditing and saving techniques in an educational institution (IMCO, Sohar, Oman);
- Effect of nano-graphene oxide and n-butanol fuel additives blended with diesel—Nigella sativa biodiesel fuel emulsion on diesel engine characteristics;
- Study of diesel engine characteristics by adding nanosized zinc oxide and diethyl ether additives in Mahua biodiesel–diesel fuel blend.
Answer: The studies were referenced in the introduction according to the suggestion. They seem to be on topics within the boundary of the problem.
Rev1: Please clearly add the Novelty statement at the end of the introduction section. Please add why the study is important and what are the outcomes of the study.
Answer: Thank you for your proposal. The antepenultimate of the introduction was changed to define the outcomes of this study better.
Rev1: Material and Methodology:
- Please add the standard deviation and uncertainty analysis of the study.
- Please check and refer these studies for uncertainty, Effect of Sr@ ZnO nanoparticles and Ricinus communis biodiesel-diesel fuel blends on modified CRDI diesel engine characteristics.
- Take care of subscripts and superscripts in Table 1
Answer: In the section on Axiomatic Design, the problem of uncertainty is addressed. The proposed study is referenced along with other two other possible approaches. Subscripts and superscripts were checked and changed.
Rev1: Results and discussion
- Please improve the overall R and D section, please add previous studies to support your claims.
- Improve quality of the graph.
Answer: The discussion section has been improved, and new references have been added to support the need for a circular economy and renewable energies. The graph has been improved by changing the arrows. Circles now have the FRs symbols.
Rev1: Conclusion:
Please check the future scope and add relevance of the study, it will be better if you can add the conclusion in points for better understanding.
Answer: Thank you so much for the suggestion. Conclusions are highlighted in points.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
First of all I would like to thank you for this paper. It was my pleasure to review this manuscript about the rebound effect which is generally defined as the difference between the expected and the actual environmental savings from efficiency improvements once a number of economic mechanisms have been considered, that is, the savings that are 'taken back'.
I found that the insights of the current research has a novelty thoeretically and practically. The background section is strong and explain the motivation of the study, while as I searched I have not found several similar research articles that were already published in journals. The authors have presented a concise literature review showing good understanding of the topic area about effect of the auditors’ burnout determinates on audit quality and performance. The literature section is referenced with up-to-date literature sources from a suitable range of citations and covering existing relevant works on the topic. However, authors had to seperated the literature section from the introduction one. The research study methods are sound and appropriate with clear explanation. Discussion is based on appropriate arguments and theoretical concepts are described in sufficient detail. Methodology has been described and shown in an appropriate way and there are not found serious methodological issues. The paper content is structured well, and ideas are described logically. Good practical implications and overall findings. Coverage of the subject is complete and well organized. Paper can have long-term value as a research reference or as a description of practice.
Some parts of the manuscript have some difficulties because of grammatical errors. I recommend the authors to thoroughly review and revise the whole manuscript once to correct these issues. However, the authors have described with clarity of expression and relevant knowledge. The authors also make good effort in describing the technical concepts in simple and easy to understand language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you so much for your appreciation, comments, and suggestions. We benefit a lot from your review. All changes were introduced. Twelve extra references were presented to create a more solid background. Moreover, the discussion has been improved.
Reviewer 2.
Dear authors,
Rev2: First of all I would like to thank you for this paper. It was my pleasure to review this manuscript about the rebound effect which is generally defined as the difference between the expected and the actual environmental savings from efficiency improvements once a number of economic mechanisms have been considered, that is, the savings that are 'taken back'.
Answer: Thank you so much for your kind words. You touched on a sharp point. Rebounds are savings that are ‘taken back’ from the expected value because there are couplings between the variables. Couplings may or may not cause rebounds. In any case, taking out all couplings allows for removing all rebounds. All sentences were checked regarding this issue.
Rev2: I found that the insights of the current research has a novelty thoeretically and practically. The background section is strong and explain the motivation of the study, while as I searched I have not found several similar research articles that were already published in journals. The authors have presented a concise literature review showing good understanding of the topic area about effect of the auditors’ burnout determinates on audit quality and performance. The literature section is referenced with up-to-date literature sources from a suitable range of citations and covering existing relevant works on the topic. However, authors had to seperated the literature section from the introduction one.
Answer: Thank you so much for your evaluation.
According to the journal guidelines, the paper might have four sections – Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. We understand that a literature section would be welcome, but we had to put it at the introduction according to the journal guidelines.
Rev2: The research study methods are sound and appropriate with clear explanation. Discussion is based on appropriate arguments and theoretical concepts are described in sufficient detail. Methodology has been described and shown in an appropriate way and there are not found serious methodological issues. The paper content is structured well, and ideas are described logically. Good practical implications and overall findings. Coverage of the subject is complete and well organized. Paper can have long-term value as a research reference or as a description of practice.
Answer: Thank you so much. We are delighted you appreciated reading our work.
Rev2: Some parts of the manuscript have some difficulties because of grammatical errors. I recommend the authors to thoroughly review and revise the whole manuscript once to correct these issues.
Answer: All work has been double-checked and the English plained when necessary.
Rev2: However, the authors have described with clarity of expression and relevant knowledge. The authors also make good effort in describing the technical concepts in simple and easy to understand language.
Answer: We deeply appreciate your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
