Green Energy and Water Resource Management: A Case Study of Fishery and Solar Power Symbiosis in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
My comments:
(1) I would recommend improving the introduction. Please, add a more detailed literature review, showing what is new in the present manuscript with respect to the findings available in literature. Authors must mandatorily prove the novelty and the scientific relevance of their work. Please be more critical (for referencing papers).
Please avoid using lumped references:
Page 1: “fragile ecological chains [2–5]”
Page 2: “mitigating climate change [11–13] and has become the primary focus of energy policies in many countries [14–17].”
Page 2: “public acceptance [22–26].”
Page 3: “other research topics [40–43]”
(2) Please improve “discussion part”. You should compare your results (from references).
(3) Please use US dollar or euro as currency.
(4) Keywords: Please add “Taiwan”
(5) Conclusion part: Please add specific results and compare with existing knowledge. Please explain novelty.
(6) Reference part: There are too many positions (89)
(7) Please add nomenclature, abbreviations section.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. We believe your comments and suggestions are appropriate and useful to us in order to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript. We have revised our paper in light of your comments and instructions. Please refer to attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and well written. After some updates it can be proposed for publication.
- There are many lumped citations in text, e.g., [2-5], [11–13], [14–17], [22–26] etc. Most of these need either to be unlumped and described in the text or removed.
- There are many abbreviations used in text making it difficult for the reader to follow the text. A table of abbreviations needs to be included in the paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. We believe your comments and suggestions are appropriate and useful to us in order to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript. We have revised our paper in light of your comments and instructions. Please refer to attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Please improve manuscript, my comments were not be only editorial. You should really improve manuscript based on my previous comments.
For example, in discussion part you added "Moreover, our results conform with those of previous studies [47,72,60,62]" What does mean? It should be scientific comparison.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. We believe your comments and suggestions are appropriate and useful to us in order to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript. We have revised our paper in light of your comments and instructions. Please refer to attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
