A Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework: Textual Analysis and Comparison of Chinese and US Energy Blockchain Policies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the Introduction chapter, there are many examples of terms related to the chosen topic, but there is no particular explanation of why the authors consider these examples necessary (e.g. carbon peak, carbon neutrality).
More emphasis should be placed on scientific language when writing the article (e.g. Part 2 of this paper introduces the operational…)
The methods used are somewhat superficial and less scientific. The methods used are somewhat superficial and less scientific. Improvements in methodology are definitely recommended, as the submitted article is not at the level of the Energies journal in its current form.
There is no Discussion chapter in the article where other examples related to the topic researched could be mentioned. This chapter could also help to strengthen the literature review, and the sources cited.
Overall, the research is interesting and contains new and relevant approaches, but in its current form, it is still "raw" and needs to be improved.
Author Response
I am sorry that I uploaded an incorrect version. Please see the attachment named Respond reviewer1 (Correct version).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Reference Number: sustainability-2265576
Review of “A Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework: Textual Analysis 2
and Comparison of Chinese and US Energy Blockchain Policies”
There are some comments for authors to improve the quality of manuscript as follows:
(1) The abstract is too long, which should be refined to enhance the innovation of research works.
(2) In second part of “Introduction” section, I suggest that the logic of literature review should be revised as clear manner; meanwhile, it should present literature review like a story. Where do we stand today? What seem to be the best methods/models? Have they been properly designed? An updated and complete literature review should be conducted. The main contribution of the authors in comparison with previous works should discuss more profoundly. There are many good studies in the related fields, but which have their shortcomings. Please enhance your novelty of developed method.
(3) In Table 2, how did authors divide policy tools into three types (including supply-based, environment-based, demand-based)? What are the division principle? Please enhance these expressions in a clear manner.
(4) In Figure 2, how did different dimensions (X, Y and Z) play roles in a policy analysis framework for energy blockchain? Did they play a positive or negative role? How did they interact in a policy analysis framework? Please fortify the explanations.
(5) Although word cloud map can reflect the word frequency, it can not reflect its positive or negative effect in a policy analysis framework for energy blockchain. Thus, how the authors use these results to support policy suggestion should be revised in a clear manner.
(6) The language of the paper needs improvement. For example: there are very long sentences in the manuscript that need to be revised. Meanwhile, some of the sentences also have structural issue. Moreover, numbers of grammatical errors exist in the manuscript that needs to be corrected.
(7) The “Conclusion” section should be revised to highlight the novelty of this paper. It is expected to include not only general description of the proposed method but also a brief summary of disadvantages of this method and some future study works. It would help the readers better understand the limitation and improvement of the proposed method.
Author Response
I am sorry that I uploaded an incorrect version. Please see the correct version named Respond reviewer2 (Correct version).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
As you know, your article focuses in an original way upon a timely topic. But your argument needs clearer and more accurate exposition. You do not seem to understand how legislation transpires in the American political system, as your mistaken assertion about the relationship of the Senate and the House indicates. (523-525) If you are attempting to inform Chinese and American policy makers about how to improve their energy blockchain norms, please articulate how you operationalize the goal of such improvement. It would help the article if you would ever so briefly comment upon the substance of the "technical characteristics" of the blockchain: immutability, traceability, openness, transparency. Then clearly and succinctly show how your advice regarding the improvement of public policy in this arena strengthens what appear to be positive attributes of the blockchain.
Maybe the paper is solid regarding policy making in the PR of China, but it shows no grasp of how the American system works, and this is of crucial importance, since the article intends to compare and contrast American and Chinese policy intent, strengths and weaknesses. The paper abounds in platitudes and truisms: "The U.S. focuses more on legalizing policies through legislation to improve the legal status of its energy blockchain policies." (525-527) What else would legislation do? How does this compare to China? Does not legislation play any role there in "legalizing" policy?
Author Response
I am sorry that I have uploaded an incorrect version. Please see the correct attachment named Respond reviewer3 (Correct version).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors!
The corrected paper is now satisfactory according to the formal requirements requested by the Energies journal. The study is recommended for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
This version is OK.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an original, pioneering essay, and, I believe, you would agree that it is not the last word on the subject. It is a pity that the grounding of your essay on an understanding of American constitutional processes seems, at least to me, so lacking. Your essay is, I opine, more an exercise in a policy advocacy than an example of rigorous political analysis. But the article deals with a timely issue in an original fashion, and, as such, of timely interest
