Developing Applicable Scenarios to Install and Utilize Solar Panels in the Houses of Abu Dhabi City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The review comments for the revised manuscript are given below,
1. The authors revised the manuscript according to my comments.
2. All the suggestions given by myself and other reviewers were incorporated except one. Use good tools without background colors for the Figures 11 to 14.
3. I recommend this manuscript may be accepted for publication in the present form. Thank you for the contribution.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank for your valuable feedback. Kindly find attached my response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)
Hussain et al. have revised the manuscript titled:Developing Applicable Scenarios to Install and Utilize Solar Panels in the Houses of Abu Dhabi City, very well. Authors have perfectly covered all the aspects which were highlighted in the previous version. In my suggestion, this article is well prepared now to be published in the journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
The Abstract must report the aim of the study, the basic information on the sample (time span, countries analyzed), the empirical methodology used, the main findings, and the relevant policy implications.
The Introduction should highlight the relevance of the topic, the novelty of the results, the importance of policy implications, the sample’s choice, the methodology’s appropriateness, the data used, the contribution to the literature, and the limitations of the study.
The literature review is partial and incomplete, and some recent and relevant contributions should be cited and discussed: i.e., 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.050; 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145893.
The theoretical framework should be discussed more in detail.
The estimated model must be justified in light of the literature on this specific topic.
Descriptive statistics are absent.
Diagnostic tests are absent.
Robustness checks are absent.
The results should be discussed more in detail.
Comparisons with previous studies are absent.
Conclusions are too short.
Policy implications are weak.
Further research should be indicated.
Limitations of the study are not provided.
Proofreading by a native speaker is required.
The editing does not follow the journal’s guidelines.
The originality value of the study is limited.
This is a basic econometric exercise without a clear innovative intuition.
How does the paper enrich the knowledge of the scientific community?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. Kindly find attached our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
After reviewing the revised paper, I have the following observations and comments:
- Not all the comments of the reviewers are responded clearly in the revised paper.
- Literature survey must be improved to compare the findings with similar studies in global range.
- Presented outcome of the findings can be written without such a survey study.
- Sample number seems to be small for representing a city.
- There are some missing links between the survey and the results such as
I) What are the relation of the results with income of the home owners?
II) What are the relation of the results with gender of the home owners?
III) What are the relations of the results with age range of the home owners?
IV) What are the relation of the results and its impact with electric tariff regions of the home owners?
V) There is no information or relation between survey results and the water and electric usage of the home owners subject to the survey.
With the view of the above observations, I concluded that this paper must
be revised according to the comments given above for further
considerations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. Kindly find attached our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors appropriately responded to reviewers' comments and performed the necessary revisions. The revised form of the paper can be considered for publication.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors must enrich several parts in their study in addition to the aspect of acceptance by different categories.
A few parts should be added in this study:
1) In a very hot climate and a lot of humidity what will be the performance of the solar panels and the life of the solar panels?
We know when it is very hot with a lot of humidity the performance of solar panels decreases. This part must be studied in such a climate.
2) The different applications must be studied, in which case the authors envisage such an installation in a case of self-consumption or connecting to networks such as microgrids?
3) The authors must complete the introduction part they can use the articles below:
Grid of Hybrid AC/DC Microgrids: A New Paradigm for Smart City of Tomorrow, IEEE-SOSE2020.
Modeling Outdoor Service Lifetime Prediction of PV Modules: Effects of Combined Climatic Stressors on PV Module Power Degradation, IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, 2019.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review comments for the manuscript, 'Examining the Social Acceptance of Solar Power Utilization in the City of Abu Dhabi', are given below,
1. The authors presented a review on Solar Power usage in Abu Dhabi. The work is good but needs a few changes for betterment.
2. Add the organization of the manuscript at the end of Introduction Section.
3. It is not a research article, it is mostly like a review article. Justify your research work done.
4. So many typos and grammatical errors are there throughout the manuscript, it must be checked and corrected. There is a mismatch in the numbering.
5. Quality of all the figures must be improved. Use good tools without background colors.
6. What about the other sources, kindly refer 10.1080/03772063.2020.1787239.
7. Conclusion must be precise and brief.
8. How can the readers trust on the data presented? Kindly add the suitable reference for all the data shown in figures.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author conducted the utilization and implantation of solar panels and solar energy scenarios in Abu Dhabi city. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas and the knowledge in this paper can contribute the solar energy utilization. After reviewing the paper, I have the following observations and comments:
- It is a good report of a statistical study for only regional area of UAE. But, it can not be generalized.
- Statistical approach, method and applications need to be explained more clearly.
- Literature survey can be improved to compare the findings with similar studies in global range.
- Outcome of the findings can be expanding to cover more general applications.
With the view of the above observations, I concluded that this paper must be revised according to the comments given above for further considerations.
Reviewer 4 Report
The Abstract must report the aim of the study, the basic information on the sample (time span, countries analyzed), the empirical methodology used, the main findings, and the relevant policy implications.
Introduction and Literature Review should be split into two different sections.
The Introduction should highlight the relevance of the topic, the novelty of the results, the importance of policy implications, the sample’s choice, the methodology’s appropriateness, the data used, the contribution to the literature, and the limitations of the study.
The literature review is partial and incomplete, and some recent and relevant contributions should be cited and discussed: i.e., 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.050; 10.1080/23322039.2016.1152729.
The theoretical framework should be discussed more in detail.
The estimated model must be justified in light of the literature on this specific topic.
Descriptive statistics are absent.
Diagnostic tests are absent.
Robustness checks are absent.
The results should be discussed more in detail.
Comparisons with previous studies are absent.
Conclusions are too short.
Policy implications are weak.
Further research should be indicated.
Limitations of the study are not provided.
Proofreading by a native speaker is required.
The editing does not follow the journal’s guidelines.
The originality value of the study is limited.
This is a basic econometric exercise without a clear innovative intuition.
How does the paper enrich the knowledge of the scientific community?
Reviewer 5 Report
In the review of research article titled: Examining the Social Acceptance of Solar Power Utilization in the City of Abu Dhabi, the authors have described the theme of the article very well covering a lot of aspects. I would like to see this article publish but after some minor modifications as follow;
1. English improvement is required throughout the article, such as in abstract and introduction authors describe
i. Surveys have been answered by houses owners
ii. which is luckily rich in solar energy….better use naturally rich
iii. which is almost half their consumption…..which is almost half of their consumption
iv. etc
2. Lot of parts in introduction portion requires references.
3. Please add the draw backs of previous of other sources of energy to highlight your study in a better way.
4. It is a comprehensive study, but I would like to suggest authors to compare the findings in table form for comparison of other sources consumption and this study.
5. It will be encouraging for the readers if authors provide the example of the cities which have completely transferred to solar system rather than conventional energy systems.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
