Transitioning towards Net-Zero Emissions in Chemical and Process Industries: A Holistic Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The first two parts of this review seems to be just stitched up from different literature sources, there seems no obvious link between the different paragraphs and reading it is extremely difficult. A few graphs and visualisation of the results would be highly recommended.
line 42-47, please give a source for those numbers
line 48-62, chemical industry is mentioned as part of process industry, and then two times separately. Which numbers apply to what?
line 79, only web of science search is being made. and with only one key words combination. This is not be sufficient to prove a point.
line 182, the use of chatGPT, which is model based on next word prediction, not on scientific data is not an appropriate source of information or analysis. Could you please indicate which part of the text was generated by chatGPT?
English language as such is ok, but some more effort is needed in order to make the text more easily readable
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your remarks. We have tried to improve the text by respecting the remarks of all three reviewers.
The first two parts of this review seem to be just stitched up from different literature sources. There seems to be no obvious link between the different paragraphs; reading it is extremely difficult.
We have reorganized the text to make links between different parts of the text.
A few graphs and a visualisation of the results would be highly recommended.
We have added 4 graphs.
- Line 42–47, please give a source for those numbers. [4] represents the whole paragraph.
- Line 48–62, the chemical industry is mentioned as part of the process industry, and then two times separately. Which numbers apply to what? We have reorganized the text and separately described different process industries.
- Line 79, only a web of science search is being made, with only one key words combination. This is not sufficient to prove a point. We did an additional search by Google Scholar and analyzed all the results in additional Table 1 and Figure 1.
- line 182, using chatGPT, a model based on next-word prediction, not on scientific data, is not an appropriate source of information or analysis. Could you please indicate which part of the text was generated by chatGPT? The ChatGPT response was used in the Literature review analysis to improve the style and clarity of the document (see Methods).
Comments on the Quality of the English Language; the English language is OK, but more effort is needed to make the text more easily readable. We have revised the text using Grammarly.
Reviewer 2 Report
My review is attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your remarks. We have tried to improve the text by respecting the remarks of all three reviewers.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please check the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Language and typographical errors must be corrected
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your remarks. We have tried to improve the text by respecting the remarks of all three reviewers.
The author(s) have provided a review on “Transitioning Towards Net Zero Emissions in the Chemical and Process Industries: A Holistic Perspective”. I can support its publication; however, I advise considerable revisions before it is published.
- Abstract should be revised regarding to novelty and applications of the proposed topic. The Abstract has been rewritten, including your comments.
- Reference the sustainability objectives mentioned in the abstract. The improved Abstract does not need any references; SDGs and EGD are well-known and referenced in the main text.
- There is no connectivity in the paper which can enhance the experience of the readers in throughout the paper. Kindly rearrange them by using some connecting literature. We have tried to reorganize the text according to your suggestion.
- Include more information about European Green Deal and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We have written separate subchapters (4.1 and 4.2) on the two topics.
- The entire document needs to have its grammatical and typographical errors fixed. Authors ought to edit it. We have revised the text using Grammarly.
- In methods section, the authors can include more literature and information to enhance the validation of the zero emissions goals. We have added 46 references.
- The text lacks any validation of some results, as in line 182 about the use of ChatGPT. The ChatGPT response was used in the Literature review analysis to improve the style and clarity of the document (see Methods).
- In the result section, the authors can make a table to summarize the information. We have added Figure 2 in the Results section.
- Write the conclusion more precisely. It should highlight the novel finding in the current study. Current conclusion is very poorly written. We have added two paragraphs to improve the Conclusions section.
The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revision. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal. The article version with Track Changes is attached.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
thank you for the corrections, text is fine
