Social Investing Modeling for Sustainable Development of the Russian Arctic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction is not very useful. Therefore, the introduction should be extended very carefully. The introduction section should be rewritten again. The introduction should highlight the study's novelty and motivation and put some literature without any useful explanation; in fact, the introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are the research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is it to propose this particular method? This study's major defect is the debate or argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session.
I would suggest the author improve your theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument. In addition, the background introduction should be condensed. The literature review is not presented in a good structure, and at the end of LR, you should come out with a paragraph to conclude your discussion, in this paragraph, you can highlight the novelty of your study also, it means what the LR has done and what you want to do. The literature review must highlight the novelty and contribution of the study, but these sections, which the authors provided only are related works and not literature review. Authors must carefully revise these sections.
There are several grammatical errors in the paper. Expert opinions details are not provided.
Author Response
The Introduction section has been redesigned. It formulates the issues discussed in the article and the novelty of the work. The article shows the contribution of the article to scientific research in order to harmonize the interests of business and indigenous peoples.
In the introductory part, the statement of the problem is highlighted, which shows the connection of theoretical reasoning to the proposals, the author's part. The volume of the introductory part has been significantly reduced!
The sections of the article have been edited, the review of the literature has been clarified, showing the novelty of the research. The number of sources for the article has been expanded to 33.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study considers the social investing modeling for Russian Arctic sustainable development. While a portfolio of social investments is formed based on the interests of indigenous peoples, the study is attempting to use expert assessment and sociological research for social investing modeling. The study identifies the need for a new approach to the sustainable development of the Arctic, based on social investment rather than not on compensation for the negative consequences of industrial development which is the common practice in most countries. While appreciating authors work, the following comments/suggestions need to be addressed to increase the readability of the manuscript.
- Make a shorter introduction and explain the study area separately. Details of the research area can come under a separate section after the Introduction.
- Please check whether your referencing method is acceptable (for example line no. 18 -Novoselova, I., Petrov, I., Novoselov, A., 2020- initials are also given. I noticed this issue throughout the paper
- Methodology: I see a lot of issues in this section. There is no proper order or flow. One way of overcoming the issues is that authors can add only essential (main) equations into the text and the rest can be given as an appendix.
- All the equations need to be formatted properly. Need to adjust the font size in the equations and within the text.
- I noticed an insufficient explanation/ interpretation of the results. Therefore, the readability or understandability of the findings is poor. This section needs to be improved/rewritten significantly after considering the above facts.
- It would be good if authors can keep 2 to 3 essential tables in the text and the rest can be added to the appendix.
- Line 511: different font size. I noticed this issue in some of the other places as well. Need to correct it through the paper.
Author Response
|
The introduction section has been finalized and updated. Information about the area and object of research is highlighted in an independent section (after introduction) In the list of references, the initials of the authors of the articles are correctly indicated, the method of reference throughout the text of the article has been checked. In the methodology section, the presentation is carried out step by step. For the consistency of perception, secondary tables were excluded from the text in the application of the work. The cumbersome system of restrictions has been removed, since the text contains a detailed description of their formation. The size of formulas and symbols in the text is formatted The section with the interpretation of the results obtained has been expanded, which illustrate the possibility of the proposed tools for substantiating and choosing socially oriented projects of an extractive company in the interests of the local population and sustainable development of the territory under consideration. Thanks! I didn't know that this could be done! An application with secondary tables has been generated. Now there are 3 tables left in the text.
Thanks! All text (except for the annotation and keywords) is made in Palatino, size 10. |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for addressing my comments thoroughly and adequately. The manuscript has reached its publication potential now. Good luck!
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the comments sufficiently
