An Analysis of Romania’s Energy Strategy: Perspectives and Developments since 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the paper An Analysis of Romania’s Energy Strategy: Perspectives and Developments since 2020, which describes the topic of post-pandemic and energy crisis climate and energy policies in the EU and Romania. While the topic of energy security and climate policy is of high relevance, the article itself does not contribute to the academic debate. It gathers a lot of facts and can serve as background information material, but it is not a scientific research paper. It does not position the topic in the academic debate (literature review), it lacks relevant research questions (or, in fact, any research questions), and it does not provide a theoretical framework and methodology (the methodology section lacks at all). The paper does not offer a coherent structure. The discussion section does not contain discussion as we expect it from a research paper, and the same goes for conclusions. I would encourage the authors to find a relevant theoretical framework, look into relevant academic debate, and try to approach the topic with this perspective in mind.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is of good quality.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding our manuscript. We acknowledge the importance of providing a coherent structure and valuable review insight. We kindly mention that our article is a review article and not a research article, as also mentioned during submission.

We coherently added the topic reviewed in this review paper, that is to analyse how Romania’s energy policies were impacted since 2020 because of the war in combination with the pandemic, from the perspective of an Eastern European country that is part of EU and NATO and also borders Ukraine.

We firmly stated the relevant research questions that the review aims to address.

We added the methodology section where we presented our theoretical framework and how we approached the thinking of this review paper, further presenting and solidifying a coherent paper structure.

We understand the concern regarding the discussion and conclusions sections not being the expected for a research paper, which it is true, we had the intent of a review paper in mind. The discussion and conclusions sections are presented as expected for a review paper, further connecting lose points and information regarding the topic in our review article: the impact on energy strategy and policies in Eastern Europe and Romania caused by the pandemic and Ruso-Ukraine war.

Thank you for ensuring that our review paper achieves the best scientific value by improving it with your valuable and experienced remarks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the energy policies of Romania in the context of the  strategies of European Union, particularly addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian war.

This study shows the situation in Eastern Europe as the energy market has changed. In particular, it delves into the situation of renewable energy production and use in Romania and provides information on Romania's potential to develop its energy strategy towards GHG emission-free production.

I suggest minor revises:

On row 44-45 is said: “Romania is the first EU member state to achieve the renewable energy targets, five years ahead of the deadline set for 2020 [4].”

After reading the source 4, there was said: "In 2016 9 EU countries have reached their RES targets for 2020." My question is, how authors justify that Romania was the first country to achieve the target?

On row 838-840 “Romania was the first country to achieve EU targets regarding the share of renewables [4], being ahead of other EU states.” Please, check also this one. Is the statement true? The first or one of the firsts?

About figures, please, revise:

Figure 19, I can see 9 pairs (2021, 2022), but only 5 explanation for those columns. Is there something missing?

Figure 20. Explanation for 3 colors are missing.  

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding our manuscript.

We verified and the reference [4] is not the correct one. It is an error. We changed it with the proper reference for that.

Thank you for pointing out that Figures have errors. We changed Figure 19 and 20 to include all 9 pairs and all 9 descriptions. Both were shrunk and it was an error.

Thank you for helping us improve the overall quality of our review paper by pointing out our errors as seen from a keen and experienced eye.