The Importance of Green Investments in Developed Economies—MCDM Models for Achieving Adequate Green Investments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper explores the significance of green investments in developed economies using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) models. As such, it is in line with the aims and scope of the Sustainability journal.
In general, the text is too basic in the current form and need much additional work before publication.
Below are several specific remarks:
1. Title should reflect that focus of the paper on renewable energy investments.
2. It is not clear what scientific added value the paper offers in relation to previous studies. This has to be properly stated.
3. Research methodology is the weakest aspect of this paper. It is poorly explained. How did the authors obtain weights and determine priorities? Empirical data used in the models is not described. This should be definitely corrected, including the sources and any potential biases or limitations in the data. A sensitivity analysis to examine how changes in criteria weights might impact the results is just one suggestion how this work could make any contribution to the current body of knowledge.
4. Limitations of the study are not discussed in the conclusion.
5. Figure 1 should be a table, not graphics.
6. Figures 2 and 3 are of low quality.
7. Appendix 1 should not be pasted as graphics.
Quality of English is moderate. Further detailed review and editing is recommended.
Author Response
All changes were implemented following reviewers' comments.
All changes are marked in red.
The document is attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the manuscript "The importance of green investments in developed economies - 2 MCDM models for achieving adequate green investments" and consider it a novel research work in the field of sustainable or green investment. Below, I provide some recommendations to strengthen the publication of the study:
In the section of Materials and Methods, I recommend incorporating a more detailed discussion of the stages of the green transition, using frameworks from recent studies on green transitions. This could include stages such as initial investment phases, scaling of green technologies, and integration into broader economic policies.
Additionally, when addressing the topic of OECD Green Growth Indicators, I recommend providing a clearer justification for the selection of OECD GGIs. Explain the relevance of each indicator in the context of the green economy.
In the AHP Method section, it is important to include a detailed description of the criteria and sub-criteria used in the AHP analysis. Explain the validation process for these criteria, perhaps by referencing other studies or expert consultations.
In the BWM Method section, I suggest enhancing the methodological section by detailing each step of the BWM method. Include how the best and worst criteria were selected and the rationale behind these choices.
Finally, in the Results section, I recommend introducing specific metrics to assess the progress of the green transition. These could include measures of emission reductions, improvements in energy efficiency, and adoption rates of green technologies. Provide a more thorough analysis of each OECD GGI used. Discuss the trends observed and their implications for the green economy. Expand on the interpretation of the AHP results. Discuss how the prioritized criteria influence investment decisions and policy-making.
By addressing these recommendations, the article can enrich the literature review of empirical studies on green investments and the green transition.
Author Response
All changes were implemented following reviewers' comments.
All changes are marked in red.
The document is attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, Thank you for the opportunity to read your interesting study on the importance of green investments in developed economies. Unfortunately, your papers do not fulfil scientific standards.
Introduction – you should better explain the need and purpose of your study. Also, you should focus on better specification of the aim of your papers. You must explain in detail the study's main aim and the circumstances which led you to this study.
Theoretical background – it would be better if your title General Review is renamed as Theoretical Background or Literature Review.
Methodology—This part should contain a better explanation of the methodology so that the reader can replicate the study or control your results. In my opinion, your methodology is inadequate for scientific papers.
Results—Your results do not fulfil scientific standards. You used simple methodology, and the result is only which criteria are important, but it is very individualistic, depending on the decisionmaker's personality.
Discussion—This part is missing, and it is a very important part of scientific papers because the results of your study should be confronted with previous studies. The discussion part needs to be added, connecting the results with academic and scientific literature and being more systematic in explaining the results and their implications.
Conclusion—This section should briefly summarize the study's main findings, theoretical and practical implications, and limitations.
Author Response
All changes were implemented following reviewers' comments.
All changes are marked in red.
The document is attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present an interesting topic related to green investment and growth of countries through a model.
Authors should structure the article according to the journal sections; introduction, literature review, material and methods, results, discussion and conclusions. In this case, the literature review was mixed with material and methods.
The materials and methods are not clear, there are pasted figures with poor graphics, which also do not contribute to the development.
Figure 1 does not show its contribution when it is presented in the text, it needs to be reworked to show what it is for.
The results are pulled out of a hat, there is no methodology to explain how they were obtained. And with them it is impossible to reach the conclusions that are put forward.
The manuscript needs to be rewritten with an order in each section of the research and with a clear exposition of the methodology used.
Author Response
All changes were implemented following reviewers' comments.
All changes are marked in red.
The document is attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for your reply, but your papers still miss the Discussion part. This part is important, becouse you need to compare the results of your study with another studies to prove, that you researched the topic and you are axperienced in this field. Please use also critical point of view.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I appreciate your efforts to make the manuscript as good as possible. Thanks for all the suggestions. Attached is my response to your comments, along with a revised manuscript.
I look forward to the new manuscript grading.
(Corresponding) Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the corrections, the model looks better, but you should add more details in the results to support the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I appreciate your efforts to make the manuscript as good as possible. Thanks for all the suggestions. Attached is my response to your comments, along with a revised manuscript.
I look forward to the new manuscript grading.
(Corresponding) Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, this version is acceptable for publishing.
