Knowledge of Energy Resources and Next Generation Energy Choice Behaviour: A Case Study of Kazakhstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Check capital letters in lines (125-130), (136-138), (140-143).
- Specify income (gross salary or net salary) in line 143.
- Author shall state name of bio-statistical program used and version.
- Restate conclusions to be more concise and less informative.
- References needed to be updated to 2023 with relevant reference.
- Reference style need to be revised.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. They have proven to be very helpful and greatly improved our paper. We look forward to your further comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1.Potential bias in the survey methodology: It's crucial to acknowledge the potential bias introduced by using an online survey methodology. To address this concern, consider discussing the limitations of self-selection bias and the implications it may have on the generalizability of the study's findings. It would also be helpful to mention any steps taken to mitigate this bias or alternative data collection methods that could be explored in future research.
2.Limited consideration of alternative perspectives: To enhance the credibility and objectivity of the study, it's important to include a section that explores alternative viewpoints or potential counterarguments. This would provide a more comprehensive analysis and demonstrate a balanced approach to the research topic. Consider discussing potential criticisms or opposing viewpoints related to the study's findings and address them in a fair and objective manner.
3.Insufficient discussion of limitations: While the study's results are coherent, it's essential to provide a thorough discussion of the study's limitations. This should include a comprehensive examination of various factors that could affect the validity of the findings. Specifically, address potential limitations related to sampling, survey design, biases, and external influences on public attitudes toward renewable energy. By acknowledging these limitations, the study's robustness and validity can be strengthened.
4.The need for further research: Acknowledge that the current study represents an initial step in understanding public attitudes towards renewable energy in Kazakhstan. Emphasize the importance of conducting further research to validate and build upon the study's findings. To enhance the impact and relevance of the study, provide suggestions for potential avenues of future research. This could include investigating specific demographic factors, exploring the effectiveness of different communication strategies, or examining the long-term trends in public attitudes towards renewable energy.
Additionally, it is worth noting that after comparing this article for plagiarism, a significant percentage (14%) of repetitions was identified even after excluding the bibliography, citations, and less than 1% of the sources. It is recommended that the author carefully review the citations and ensure that proper referencing and citation practices are followed throughout the article. Clarifying the citation items and avoiding excessive repetition will contribute to the overall clarity and quality of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. They have proven to be very helpful and greatly improved our paper. We look forward to your further comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper examines the influence of individual knowledge of energy policy and issues on the choice of next-generation energy in Kazakhstan. The study reveals that awareness of Kazakhstan's abundant gas reserves and renewable energy potential positively affects support for exploiting these resources. Reasons cited for supporting renewable energy include carbon dioxide reduction, its unlimited energy supply, international adoption, and addressing the climate crisis. Lower-income and less-educated individuals show lower support for renewable energy, while women, regardless of their knowledge, exhibit more ambivalence. Overall, those highly aware of the climate crisis demonstrate the highest support for next-generation energy, while lower-income residents in East Kazakhstan express opposition due to potential cost implications, even if they have experienced the effects of nuclear testing.
Overall, the manuscript is well written, direct to the point, but it can be enhanced.
Comments:
1- The abstract part does not reflect the main findings in the manuscript, I suggest that to re-write it again.
2- In the introduction part it is important that the authors give the reader a clear idea about nonrenewable and renewable energy sources such as nuclear and fossil, and different types of fission nuclear power plant (PWR, BWR, HTR…..) to enhance the credibility and readability of this manuscript.
a. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/light-water-reactors
b. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/boiling-water-reactor
c. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108551
d. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820588-4.00005-0
3- Provide a list of abbreviations.
4- I suggest that the authors revisit the literature and enhance the flow and clarity of the introduction part.
5- Figure 1, I think it should be in the methodology section.
6- Page 3 lines 95 to 104, I suggest providing a table to add more clarity and description for this paragraph.
7- 234U and 238U should be 234U and 238U.
8- (δD, δ18O) what is δ means ? and 18O should be 18O.
9- Describe clearly what the benefits of utilizing nuclear power to the future energy mix. It is not weel described in Hypothesis 1.
1- Section 2.2: add more description for the dependent variable models for various types of energy and show what the contribution of each energy type.
1- Conclusion part can be enhanced since the current in not sufficient
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. They have proven to be very helpful and greatly improved our paper. We look forward to your further comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept after minor revision
