Next Article in Journal
Returning to Leisure Activity Post-Stroke: Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Coupling Effect and Space-Time Difference between China’s Digital Economy Development and Carbon Emissions Reduction
Previous Article in Journal
The Relationship between Work, Health and Job Performance for a Sustainable Working Life: A Case Study on Older Manual Employees in an Italian Steel Factory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Carbon Reduction of the Three-Year Air Pollution Control Plan under the LEAP Model Using a GREAT Tool in Panzhihua, China
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Dynamic Evolution of Global Energy Security and Geopolitical Games: 1995~2019

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 14584; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114584
by Getao Hu, Jun Yang * and Jun Li *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 14584; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114584
Submission received: 11 October 2022 / Revised: 2 November 2022 / Accepted: 3 November 2022 / Published: 7 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Low-Carbon Development and Carbon Reduction)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper evaluates the global energy security and tries to explain the issue from the aspect of geopolitical games. Based on EWM, it provides an index to measure the energy security situation in different countries. The paper could be relevant from the energy policy-making perspective. Nevertheless, as it stands, it needs thorough and substantial revisions in terms of both form and content, as follows: 

1.       The authors need to better illustrate their paper and underline its novelty compared to previous research in the sector of Introduction. Additionally, the dynamic evolution of global energy security might be too simple, it must be proved by some time-vary relationship or temporal-correlation indeed.

2.       The paper use entropy weighting method (EWM) to analysis the issue of energy security. Although EWM is subjective enough, the authors should change other methods to confirm the robustness of result which shows “J” shape trend.

3.       It is necessary to consider the heterogeneity between energy export economies and energy import economies in the sector of discussion of result.

4.       Last but not least, there are many style and grammar issues left such as “has” in line 9. Thus, we recommend the authors to resort to professional proofreading services.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Reasonable effort has been made by the authors and I feel it is valuable to the research community. The manuscript is fine but I feel some of the improvements must be made as followed.

1) Pg 3 line 115, “AR” appeared all of sudden. Please include the full form of AR.

2) Pg 3 line 138, “when establishing… principal component analysis”, references of the studies may be mentioned such as https://doi.org/10.3390/en15113929,

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100710, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106099.

  

3) Pg 3 line 144, “FDA focuses on curved data …. which was rarely used “, please clarify and explain about what is the main advantage of using the curved data in your case?

 

4) Pg 5 line 187, line ending “on the curvilinear form”, please add the explanation that the data utilized in your study has actually attained curvilinear form.

 

5) Section 2.5, Table 1, please insert references for dimensions and indicators sources.

 

 

6) Section 5, pg 19, “J-shape trend” is mentioned. Please add explanation about what J-shape is revealing?  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Agree to publish.

Back to TopTop