The Market for Low-Carbon-Intensity Ammonia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear actors

Thank you for your work, but this is just a statistical data collection and not a research article. I am not sure about its suitability for publication in that journal. This is just a study, not a research paper. If it is to be published, I would recommend a description of the production technologies of both hydrogen and ammonia, and I would also recommend listing the possibilities of CO2 production.

The given article is suitable for newspapers or non-reviewed journal. There is no novelty or scientific content in the article, and it is necessary for publication in research journal. Therefore, I recommend revising the article and adding data on suitable technologies.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see our one-to-one responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "The market for low carbon intensity ammonia (LCIA)" by the authors is commendably written and structured. However, before potential publication, it is imperative that the authors address the following inquiries:

 

1.      Instead of "The Market for Low Carbon Intensity Ammonia (LCIA)," consider a title like "The Market for Low Carbon Intensity Ammonia" and then introduce "LCIA" upon its first use in the text.

 

2.    The introduction section should provide a clear discussion of the novelty inherent in the present article.

 

3.      Figure 4 is currently not legible, which may hinder readers’ ability to understand the data presented. Please enhance the resolution or adjust the formatting to ensure the figure is clear and readable.

 

4.      Throughout the paper, the chemical notation for hydrogen and carbon dioxide should be formatted as H₂ and CO₂ (with the subscript) rather than H2 and CO2.

 

5.      I anticipated a comprehensive discussion on the current state of the low-carbon ammonia market, including an analysis of existing market conditions and projections for future developments. However, the manuscript appears to lack detailed insights into these aspects.

 

6.  To ensure correctness, the authors should rigorously check their references. I recommend using reference management software such as Mendeley.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs moderate English language editing to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see our one-to-one responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I am convinced that the topic taken up by the Authors falls within the publication area of the Gases journal. The title corresponds to the content.

I have a comments and objections:

1) The Authors claimed the type of manuscript: Article. In my opinion, this is a literature review.

2) Manuscript lacks structure that is characteristic of a scientific article: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendations to Practice (additionally)

3) L42, L44, L239:

CO2 --> CO₂

4) Please convert footnotes to the standard citation method according to the MDPI template (L129, L165, L168, L172, L250, L263)

Final conclusion: I do not recommend the manuscript for publication in MDPI.

Author Response

Please see our one-to-one responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Thank you very much for your work and how you have improved your article. I agree with your answer, and I agree with publication of the article.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is now well-prepared, and all my concerns have been addressed. I recommend accepting it in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

2^nd review of the manuscript: 

ID gases-3078200 

Significant corrections and additions have been made compared to the first version of the manuscript (gases-3078200-peer-review-v1). I am pleased that the Authors have taken my comments into account.