The Drivers and Barriers of the Solar Water Heating Entrepreneurial System: A Cost–Benefit Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has identified a gap that the studies regarding the factors hindering or driving the development of the solar water heating system industry. The articles present an investigation into the solar water heating system industry challenges and attempts to define the requirements to further develop the industry. The authors have presented the energy saving and CO2 emissions per region. At the end, they conducted a qualitative method including a questionnaire in Turkey.

It is an okay manuscript, but it requires a major revision. The organization of the manuscript is very poor. The language of the manuscript is very basic, much lower than what is expected from a technical research article. The authors have to modify each sentence of the entire manuscript to bring it at a sufficient scale to be a research article. The mathematical model is pretty much simple which are the general equations from any solar energy book. You can in fact, remove them, or summarize them. The questionnaire presented in Table 1 is very limited, it is recommended to extend it or cite its differences with other social questionnaires like the following, “Does recycling solar panels make this renewable resource sustainable? Evidence supported by environmental, economic, and social dimensions”. In fact, the present manuscript can be connected with the sustainability concepts of energy systems, and the projection for Turkey can be converted in a global scale. It is recommended to use the following references to improve the discussion “Projecting global water footprints diminution of a dew-point cooling system: Sustainability approach assisted with energetic and economic assessment”, and “Data engineering for digital twining and optimization of naturally ventilated solar façade with phase changing material under global projection scenarios”. The usage of the word “preneurnial” does not seem to be appropriate. The abstract says very little about the methodology, results, and discussion of the article. There are so many overlapping keywords.

Author Response

Review Report 1

 

Dear Prof.

 

Firstly, thank you very much for your comments and valuable explanations. Your referral contains crucial instructions for our study. We respect your feedback regarding this.

 

Q1: The organization of the manuscript is very poor. The language of the manuscript is very basic, much lower than what is expected from a technical research article. The authors have to modify each sentence of the entire manuscript to bring it at a sufficient scale to be a research article.

A1:The study's language and organization were reviewed and all necessary modifications were made, as you indicated in the report.

Q2: The mathematical model is pretty much simple which are the general equations from any solar energy book. You can in fact, remove them, or summarize them.

A2: A supplementary mathematical model is used in the study. This model comply with general mathematical formula. On the other hand, starting point of the formula is based on the statistical evaluation of the local (i.e. Adana) meteorological data. That model is for understanding the year round distrubution of utilizable solar energy and meteorological factors which drive the industry. More complicated mathematical model is not needed in this study because this study is not a pure engineering study to aim to get high precision.

Q3: The questionnaire presented in Table 1 is very limited, it is recommended to extend it or cite its differences with other social questionnaires like the following, “Does recycling solar panels make this renewable resource sustainable? Evidence supported by environmental, economic, and social dimensions”. 

A3: The study's methodology was a semi-structured interview. The questions' goal is to pinpoint the factors that encourage or hinder entrepreneurship. Since nearly every participant has completed high school, the questions are simple to comprehend, concise, and geared to prevent confusion. The number of questions was limited due to the business owners' demanding working conditions and the in-depth interviews.

Q4: It is recommended to use the following references to improve the discussion “Projecting global water footprints diminution of a dew-point cooling system: Sustainability approach assisted with energetic and economic assessment”, and “Data engineering for digital twining and optimization of naturally ventilated solar façade with phase changing material under global projection scenarios”.

A4: The discussion section was reinforced by including the indicated papers as references after they were assessed and determined to be significant and qualified for the topic.

 

 

Q5: The usage of the word “preneurnial” does not seem to be appropriate. The abstract says very little about the methodology, results, and discussion of the article.

A5: The abstract was revised and updated; the results of the study were given in the abstract

 

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

The Drivers And Barriers Of The Solar Water Heating Entrepreneurial System: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

 

General

 

Professional English editing is important. For example, check the spelling of  “Entrepreneurial” in the topic.

 

 

Abstract

 

This section is not written well and contains a lot of irrelevant information. An abstract should contain the following (in that order): 1-2 lines explaining the background of the topic, the topic itself clearly written in other words, methodology used, results found, implications and recommendations of the paper (they must be original, specific and linked to the topic). The abstract should be revised in accordance with the above comments.  

 

Introduction

 

 

What is happening in Adana/Turkey in the context of the topic? This must be explained in the introduction. Explain in brief.

 

Why are they sampled and not other regions? What makes them so unique in relation to this study?

 

The problem statement of the paper is not clear. It must be explained in relation to this topic (Adana/Turkey)

 

What are the research questions and/or objectives of this paper?

 

What are the main strong contributions of the paper to empirical literature? At the moment, only short statements which are not clear are mentioned.

 

Literature Review

 

 

What is the theoretical model of this paper?

 

What gap available in the empirical literature are the authors covering? There should be a brief explanation of this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Data

 

Add the full data collection tool at the end of the paper. The interview tool must be added as part of the Appendix section.

The authors did not use the “Cronbach alpha reliability” tool to justify the questions. This requires to be done.

On what basis were the questions in the interview guide developed? What past literature supports the selection of the questions?

How reliable and valid is this interview guide?  

 Explain how ethical issues were addressed. 

5. Tool

 

The mathematical tool (s) used should be clearly explained. Authors should have identified that tool(s) and explained it, stating reasons why it is the best approach for the paper.

 

The econometric tools background and associated equations incorporating variables has not been done.

 

Diagnostic tests and other supporting prior tests (before analysis) should be briefly examined and justified.

 

 

Results

 

 

What previous studies agree and/or conflict with your study?

 

Provide an integrated analysis of your results. How are they agreeing and conflicting and why?

 

Separate conclusion and discussion

 

Implications of the study

 

Under implications – explain how this study will be important for [a] policy-making in these countries [b] practice  [c] research on this topic, especially  [d] sustainable development goals, particularly Agenda 30.

Conclusion

Please mention the limitations of the study and mention the future research direction as well

Should be improved

Author Response

Review Report 2

 

Dear Prof.

 

Firstly, thank you very much for your comments and valuable explanations. Your referral contains crucial instructions for our study. We respect your feedback regarding this.

 

Q1: Professional English editing is important. For example, check the spelling of “Entrepreneurial” in the topic.

A1: The language of the study was revised.

Q2: This section is not written well and contains a lot of irrelevant information. An abstract should contain the following (in that order): 1-2 lines explaining the background of the topic, the topic itself clearly written in other words, methodology used, results found, implications and recommendations of the paper (they must be original, specific and linked to the topic). The abstract should be revised in accordance with the above comments.  

A2: Abstract was revised and modified as it is indicated.

Q3: What is happening in Adana/Turkey in the context of the topic? This must be explained in the introduction. Explain in brief. Why are they sampled and not other regions? What makes them so unique in relation to this study? The problem statement of the paper is not clear. It must be explained in relation to this topic (Adana/Turkey)

A3: The information regarding Adana and why the sample is Adana has been explained.

Q4: What are the research questions and/or objectives of this paper? What are the main strong contributions of the paper to empirical literature? At the moment, only short statements which are not clear are mentioned.

A4: The problem statement of the paper and contribution are clearly explained. The research question is given in the study. The contributions of the paper to empirical literature was explained.

Q5: What is the theoretical model of this paper?

A5: Since it is a qualitative study and does not include variables to measure, the study does not have a theoretical model. The study aims to reply the Research question. 

Q6: What gap available in the empirical literature are the authors covering? There should be a brief explanation of this subject.

 

A6: The gap was explained in the study.

 Q7: Add the full data collection tool at the end of the paper. The interview tool must be added as part of the Appendix section.

A7: The full data collection tool was added as part of the Appendix section at the end of the paper.

Q8: The authors did not use the “Cronbach alpha reliability” tool to justify the questions. This requires to be done.

A8: Since it is a semi-instructured interview method, the variables and a Likert scale do not exist in the study. If a Likert scale is not used in a study; Cronbach alpha reliability can not be calculated. Also, that kind of calculations require a big sized samples for correct values. The semi-structured interviews usually have been conducted with 10-50 sample.

Q9: On what basis were the questions in the interview guide developed? What past literature supports the selection of the questions?

A9: There is no study that exactly on this topic. Firstly, entrepreneurship studies were revised and literature was checked. Then, all the authors created the questions by discussing based on the literature.

Q10: How reliable and valid is this interview guide?  

A10: In light of the fact that similar questions have been used in previous studies with similar results, we can conclude that the questions are reliable and valid.

Q11: Explain how ethical issues were addressed. 

A11: Before interviewing the participants, they were informed and obtained permission by signing the participant list:

I am voluntarily participating in this study and have been informed that my responses will be used solely for scientific purposes. 

Q12: The mathematical tool (s) used should be clearly explained. Authors should have identified that tool(s) and explained it, stating reasons why it is the best approach for the paper. The econometric tools background and associated equations incorporating variables has not been done. Diagnostic tests and other supporting prior tests (before analysis) should be briefly examined and justified.

A12: The mathematical formula is checked. That model is wellknown  approach in solar engineering studies because it is easy to evaluate of the solar energy bring acceptable accuracy for scientific calculation. One of the robust features of the model is starting point of the model from measured meteorological dataset.

Q13: What previous studies agree and/or conflict with your study? Provide an integrated analysis of your results. How are they agreeing and conflicting and why?

A13: The previous studies were discussed in the discussion part.

Q14: Separate conclusion and discussion

A14: Conclusion and discussion were seperated

Q15: Under implications – explain how this study will be important for [a] policy-making in these countries [b] practice  [c] research on this topic, especially  [d] sustainable development goals, particularly Agenda 30.

A15: Implications of the study was added

Q16: Please mention the limitations of the study and mention the future research direction as well

A16: The limitations of the study and the future research direction were given.

 

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for this interesting research. This study aims to presents an investigation into the solar water heating system industry’s challenges and attempts to define the requirements to further develop the industry. Hereby are some comments that may help you improve on it:

1)    Introduction

Overall, the introduction section is ok. Nevertheless, you should put additional focus in what is the main gap to be fulfilled by your study and on a clear description of what is the study’s objective.

2)    Discussion

This article should reinforce the discussion and implications behind the data analysis.

3)    Conclusion

Please add the future directions of this research, limitations of the study should also be discussed.

4)    Format and grammar

Regarding format, the text (including References) and figures should be reviewed again and fine-tuned according to the format required by this journal. For example, in Discussion section Line 449, there is an additional “.” in front of the “Renewable energy is today a global focus.”

Author Response

Review Report 3

 

Dear Prof.

 

Firstly, thank you very much for your comments and valuable explanations. Your referral contains crucial instructions for our study. We respect your feedback regarding this.

Q1: You should put additional focus in what is the main gap to be fulfilled by your study and on a clear description of what is the study’s objective.

A1: The introduction part was revised and a clear description of the study’s objective is given.

Q2: This article should reinforce the discussion and implications behind the data analysis.

A2: The discussion and implications part were reinforced.

Q3: Please add the future directions of this research, limitations of the study should also be discussed.

A3: The future directions of the research, limitations of the study were added to the study.

Q4: Regarding format, the text (including References) and figures should be reviewed again and fine-tuned according to the format required by this journal. For example, in Discussion section Line 449, there is an additional “.” in front of the “Renewable energy is today a global focus.”

A4: Format and grammar were revised.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is improved and it is acceptable now. 

Author Response

Thanks