Assessment of Sustainable Biomass Energy Technologies in Pakistan Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article needs a major revision. Here are my concerns.

 

Abstract：The abstract section does not contain the main conclusions.

For Figure 1, please use scientific notation. Overall, this manuscript uses too many figures and needs to be condensed.

Line 141, please use subscripts.

Lines 139-145 describe biogas production and as far as I know anaerobic digestion can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is one of the advantages of this biomass energy technology, please add relevant information. Please refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157384 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.06.033

Line 152, “biomass”.

Line 171, 179, and 181. The format of the references is wrong.

Table 1, please recheck Table 1, e.g. are they aligned? The penultimate row of the literature is not in the right format.

Line 366, why is the font bolded here?

The resolution of some figures is too low.

The conclusion section has some irrelevant content and needs to be refined.

Author Response

The authors thank the respected reviewer # 1 for the appreciation and valuable feedback on the manuscript. The expert’s feedback comments helped us to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Please find attached below point-by-point responses to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The energy issue in general is an interesting and important topic today. But I see shortcomings in the writing of the article and the presentation of the study. I am sending my thoughts on this subject in the attachment file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The authors thank the respected reviewer # 2 for the appreciation and valuable feedback on the manuscript. The expert’s feedback comments helped us to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Please find attached below point-by-point responses to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all my comments. Their manuscript can be accepted as it is.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank the authors for their efforts. The article is pretty good compared to the first version.