Business Model Innovations for Renewable Energy Prosumer Development in Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting. Some points to be improved:
- It is necessary an English writing review, because some parts are hard to understand, especially due the too long phrases;
- Figure 1 and Table 1 are not cited and explained in the text;
- There are some citations in the text that do not use the number format;
- There 48 bibliographic references in the paper, but it seems that not all of them are cited in the text. Please check;
- It is not clear how the information provided by the interviews were used for the analysis.
Author Response
Thank you very much! please find attached our response.
Best regards,
Chun Xia-Bauer
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I enjoyed reading your manuscript and I think the topic is very interesting. Due to several issues as higlighted in the file attached, your manuscript requires a major editing before it can be accepted for publication.
Thank you and best wishes!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much! please find attached our response.
Best regards,
Chun Xia-Bauer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal's attention. This study attempts to investigates two BM innovations in Germany, including P2P electricity trading and aggregation of flexibility from small-size prosumers. Suggesting Business Model, this study has identified drivers and barriers, both internal and external factors to understand the current development and to explore their future prospects in Germany. Overall, the paper is well written and well structured, therefore it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. However, analytic processes are not enough. Generally well written but requires some editing and revision.
In literature review, this study well explained research conceptual model. based on theories. Further explanations for research design, data collection process and data analysis processes are required. In addition, data quality issues should also be considered.
The quality of communication is appropriate. Generally, well written but requires some editing and revision.
Author Response
Thank you very much! please find attached our response.
Best regards,
Chun Xia-Bauer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revised manuscript. The manuscript has been much improved but more recent studies need to be cited.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your feedback!
we cited the following four literatures:
10 Tushar,W.; Yuen,C.; Saha,T.; Morstyn,T. Chapman,A.; Alam, A.; Hanif, S.; Poor,H. Peer-to-peer energy systems for connected communities: A review of recent advances and emerging challenges, Applied Energy 2021, 282 Part A. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116131
16 Morstyn,T.; Savelli,I.; Hepburn, C. Multi-scale design for system-wide peer-to-peer energy trading, One Earth 2021, 4(5), 629-638. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.018
17 Wang, N.; Xu, W.; Xu, Z.; Shao, W. Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading among Microgrids with Multidimensional Willingness. Energies 2018, 11, 3312. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123312
18 Muhsen, H.; Allahham, A.; Al-Halhouli, A.; Al-Mahmodi, M.; Alkhraibat, A.; Hamdan, M. Business Model of Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading: A Review of Literature. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031616
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.
Thank you for your efforts.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review and feedback!
