National Policies, Recent Research Hotspots, and Application of Sustainable Energy: Case of China, USA, and European Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the national policies, recent research hotspots, and application of sustainable energy case of China, USA and Europe. Three types of sustainable energy application including solar cells, recharge battery, and hydrogen production have been analyzed. This manuscript provides both empirical and theoretical contributions to research on energy transitions. To present a high-quality publication, following revisions are advised:
1. Some newly developed recharge batteries have been widely studied and regarded as the next-generation rechargeable batteries, including lithium-sulfur batteries, sodium ion batteries. This method should be mentioned in the introduction part. Please refer to Energy Storage Mater. 34 (2021) 107-127, Energy Storage Mater. 27 (2020) 279-296.
2. The language of English should be improved. There are some spelling and grammar mistakes through the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “National Policies, Recent Research Hotspots, and Application of Sustainable Energy: Case of China, USA, and European Countries” (ID: sustainability-1807650). Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made adjustments and corrections to meet the requirements of experts with positive responses.
All the revisions to the manuscript have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
1. Response to comment:Some newly developed recharge batteries have been widely studied and regarded as the next-generation rechargeable batteries, including lithium-sulfur batteries, sodium ion batteries. This method should be mentioned in the introduction part. Please refer to Energy Storage Mater. 34 (2021) 107-127, Energy Storage Mater. 27 (2020) 279-296.
Response: We are grateful for these suggestions. The newly developed recharge batteries of lithium-sulfur batteries and sodium-ion batteries have been added and discussed according to the introduction in the recommended articles.
2. Response to comment: The language of English should be improved. There are some spelling and grammar mistakes through the manuscript.
Response: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the authors
The paper entitled “National Policies, Recent Research Hotspots, and Application of Sustainable Energy Case of China, USA and Europe” is a very timely scholarly piece, and the authors have presented it properly. Despite it, this paper requires a minor revision as follows:
-the purposes/objectives of the study are not clear.
- theoretical argument should be presented in the introduction section or authors can develop a separate theoretical underpinning section.
-authors have mentioned China, USA and Europe. Here two’s (China and USA) are country and other (Europe) is continent. Please clarify behind considering both countries and continent in the study.
-the contribution of this paper is totally missing. Please insert it in the introduction section.
-methodology is not mentioned in the manuscript. Please write the research methods.
-the conclusion section is very slim. Please extend it.
-policy implications are totally absent in the conclusion section. Please write the policy implications encompassing global context.
-more scientific gesture is required in the write-up.
-language should be checked properly.
-please mention the limitation of the study and scope of the further study.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “National Policies, Recent Research Hotspots, and Application of Sustainable Energy: Case of China, USA, and European Countries” (ID: sustainability-1807650). Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made adjustments and corrections to meet the requirements of experts with positive responses.
All the revisions to the manuscript have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
- Response to comment:- the purposes/objectives of the study are not clear.
Response 1: We are grateful for these suggestions. To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer's concerns, we have added a more detailed illustration of the purposes/objectives and the research questions of this study, please see the “Introduction” and “Research Method” parts in the revised manuscript.
- Response to comment: - theoretical argument should be presented in the introduction section or authors can develop a separate theoretical underpinning section.
Response 2: We really appreciate the reviewer’s evaluation of our work and agree with the comments regarding the limitations of our study. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have added a new section of the literature review -“2. Theoretical framework", which includes “2.1 variation in national energy transition politics” and “2.2 technological innovation of sustainable energy”.
- Response to comment: -authors have mentioned China, USA and Europe. Here two’s (China and USA) are country and other (Europe) is continent. Please clarify behind considering both countries and continent in the study.
Response 3: We are extremely grateful to the reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have modified the title of this article, and the keyword has been changed from “Europe” to “European Countries”. In the section “Research Method”, we clarify the sampling process.
- Response to comment: -the contribution of this paper is totally missing. Please insert it in the introduction section.
Response 4: We revised the introduction part and inserted the contribution of this study.
- Response to comment: -methodology is not mentioned in the manuscript. Please write the research methods.
Response 5: We have added the suggested content of “3. Research Methods”, which includes “3.1. Process tracing and case study” and “3.2 Data source”
- Response to comment: -the conclusion section is very slim. Please extend it.
Response: Our deepest gratitude goes to you for your careful work. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please see the “7. Discussion and Conclusions” part.
- Response to comment: -policy implications are totally absent in the conclusion section. Please write the policy implications encompassing global context.
Response 7: Thanks so much for these valuable suggestions, we have carefully revised these issues. We clarify the policy implication in the conclusion section and add more theoretical arguments in the “4. National Policies” section.
- Response to comment: -more scientific gesture is required in the write-up.
Response: We restructured the whole article by adding several new sections, to make the discussion of this paper more focused.
- Response to comment: -language should be checked properly.
Response: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.
- Response to comment: -please mention the limitation of the study and scope of the further study.
Response: Thank you so much for giving an accurate summary of our work. We revised the “Conclusion” section and added the limitation of this study.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
