Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the factors influencing renewable energy consumption, emphasizing the distinct roles of oil imports and exports. Using annual data from 1990 to 2018, the study applies panel multiple regression analysis with a fixed effects model. The findings reveal that net energy imports significantly impact renewable energy consumption, with a stronger inverse relationship in oil-exporting countries compared to oil-importing countries. This research work is interesting since it deals with a current topic and falls within the scope of the journal. The present manuscript can be proposed for sustainability if, and only if, the comments below are taken into account.

The paper organization needs to be improved.

ABSTRACT: Kindly review the abstract structure by answering the following questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? What is the novelty of this research? Who will benefit from it?

Where's the contribution (the added value)? I don't see any, to be honest.

The methodology is not clear. A graph illustrating the used process would be appreciated.

There are only tables ! so why not use graphic illustrations to make the subject easier to understand?

A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

 

Check the template of the paper, especially the references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Attached is the reply

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

 

General Comment

The division is a bit "artificial". Energy exporters always have the upper hand. They can slowly introduce new technical solutions.

 

Some suggestions that might help improve this paper are listed as follows:

 

"Recent scientific studies demonstrate that the use of renewable energy is expanding quickly and that CO2 levels are decreasing..."

My Comment

This thesis can be discussed. Which continent is this comment about? Explain, please.

 

"Our findings are contradicting with the findings of **** (2018) and ***** (2017) who found a positive significant relationship between the Crude oil average closing price and renewable energy consumption."

My Comment

(AD 2024)

In my opinion, the correlation between renewable energy and sovereign yields/spreads is not positive.

 

Interference

There have been significant disruptions in recent years. Authors should consider two factors

- Covid-19 and

- War in Ukraine.

 

These two factors have affected energy prices and the directions of their distribution. There are also new solutions. Authors should discuss this issue.

 

 

My Conclusion

The paper must be supplemented.

 

Please revise the text, there are some errors to be fixed. I suggest eliminating these disadvantages.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Please find attached the reply to the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my gratitude for having had the opportunity to review this paper. I find it interesting, but in my opinions some relevant points should be addressed:

1. Table 3 and Table 4 - correlation matrix. It is not clear why the correlation matrix shows coefficients below and above the diagonal. It seems a repetition, but then if you look at the figures they are slightly different. Please revise this table.

2.  Regressions results. These findings are presented very differently across tables, with one with a few digits and other ones with several ones.

3. It is not clear why authors do not use convential terminology for significance (e.g. *** < 0.01, ** < 0.05 and * < 0.1). This would be helpful in the interpretation of their results

4. It is not clear if the estimated model is a panel OLS or a cross-sectional regression. Authors should include fixed effects at the time and country level in the first case, and at the country level in the second case to see whether their results are robust.

 

Minor:

1. Please try to avoid splitting the tables in two pages. This makes the reading very difficult.

2. Please edit better the paper because it is quite difficult to be followed in the current setting

Author Response

Please find attached the reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very interesting, meaningful and well written. I recommend that it should be accepted for publication after the following minor revisions:

- since the authors propose a formula (Eq. 1), its graphical representation and comparison with independent variables among the various cases would be very interesting.

- the authors mention several financial and energy indicators without explaining their meaning. For each indicator, a description or a formula or at least a reference should be provided.

- references should be formatted according to the journal's standards.

- quality of figures should be improved to meet journal's standards because they are very difficult to read in the present form.

Author Response

Attached is the cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The figure resolution is too low to see the content clearly. In addition, there is no figure caption in the manuscript.

2.     Please mark the sources of the data listed in every table.

3.     Please provide the full term and its abbreviation only when it first appears; there is no need to repeat it subsequently, such as EUPC, etc.;

4.     Please thoroughly check and revise the English spelling and grammar mistakes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please thoroughly check and revise the English spelling and grammar mistakes.

Author Response

Attached is the cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article delves into the key determinants of renewable energy consumption, bridging the knowledge gap by comparing the determinants of oil-importing and oil-exporting countries, providing a comprehensive and nuanced perspective to inform policy recommendations. This is a topic of interest to researchers in related fields, but some improvements are needed at this stage. My detailed comments are as follows:

1 There are many details in the article, including but not limited to the blurring and layout of the picture, please revise it.

2 Panel multiple regression analysis and fixed-effect models were used to explore the research questions. Specifically, how do these models apply to datasets? How can panel data help address these research questions? How can fixed-effect models effectively control for potential confounders?

3 Why was this time frame and dataset chosen to study the determinants of renewable energy consumption, using annual data from the World Bank database from 1990 to 2018? Is the reliability and timeliness of the data taken into account?

4 The authors may consider building on this paper to consider integrated modeling of multi-agent energy systems that consider renewable energy sources to better facilitate investment in renewable energy infrastructure, e.g., DOI:org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123275.

5 In an article, future research directions are also the part that readers want to see, and the author can supplement this part with reference to related articles, e.g., DOI:10.1109/TCE.2024.3412803.

Author Response

Attached is the cover letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, I can't accept it in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Attached is the cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for having addressed my concerns.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some improvements are needed at this stage. My detailed comments are as follows:

1 In this article, the authors would like to see future research directions that can be used to better promote investment in renewable energy infrastructure by considering the integrated modeling of multi-agent energy systems for renewable energy, e.g., DOI:org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123275. Please add to this section.

Author Response

Attached is our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sorry but I can't find the contribution!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

3