Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Its Impact on Economic Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigated the relationship between energy consumption and 11 economic growth of selected developed and developing countries during 1993-2019. The paper is well written and the findings are meaningful. This reviewer has the following comments:
1. The contributions of this work need to be well summarised. What is noval findings and methods compared to the existing research.
2. The probelm formulations need to be improved, e.g., in EQ (1), should 'it' be italic or not?
3.It would be great to add some figures to allow reader directly see the findings and improvements.
Author Response
Responses to the Comments from Reviewer #1
- The contributions of this work need to be well summarized. What are novel findings and methods compared to the existing research?
Response: While there are many studies on the relationship between energy consumption (renewable or nonrenewable) and economic growth, most studies did not separate the effect of two types of energy on economic growth. Some studies looked at the impact of renewable energy consumption (REC) and others consider the effects of nonrenewable energy consumption (NRE) on economic growth. This study tries to fill this gap and evaluate the effect of REC and NRE on economic growth. Accordingly, unlike other studies, beyond estimating the impact of REC and NREC on growth, the analysis extended for two groups of developing and developed countries. This allows us to investigate and compare the effect of two types of energy consumption on economic growth in two groups of countries.
- The problem formulations need to be improved, e.g., in EQ (1), should 'it' be italic or not?
Response: Done. Thanks!
- It would be great to add some figures to allow readers directly see the findings and improvements.
Response: Done. Thanks!
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is aimed at research of relationship between energy consumption and economic growth of selected developed and developing countries during 1993-2019. The authors explained the research methodology, identified its hypotheses, systematized data for 30 developed and 29 developing countries.
Recommendations for authors:
1) deepen the literature review and make the relevant section in the article
2) add a separate section Discussion in the article
3) specify the limitations of the research
4) deepen the sections Results and Conclusions
Author Response
Responses to the Comments from Reviewer #2
- 1. Deepen the literature review and make the relevant section in the article.
Response: Done. Thanks!
- 2. Add a separate section Discussion in the article
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In order to avoid repetition of results and interpretations, results and discussion have been explained simultaneously.
- 3. Specify the limitations of the research
Response: Done. Thanks!
- 4. Deepen the sections Results and Conclusions
Response: Done. Thanks!
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The current section design is very confusing. We suggest organizing your sections as “1.Introduction, 2.Theoretical Analysis and Hypothesis Development, 3.Methodology, 4.Result Analysis, 5.Discussion, ‘6.Conclusion, Implications and Limitations’ ”. All related sections should be carefully revised and changed. Sample papers can be found at AMJ, etc.
2. In the current Introduction section, why there are H1, H2 etc., and also there is Hypothesis 1(H1) at the end of this section(line-126) at the same time? Also, what is the current research gap? Why the reader should expect to understand something of new by reading your paper (i.e., novelty)? Currently more literature review is included.
3. “Robust analysis” is missing your result analysis section?
4. The current Conclusion section should be re-written, for the suggested section “Conclusion, Implications and Limitations”, also authors should start with your main findings in sub-section as "Main findings": author’s original thoughts and evaluation of the obtained results, and "Theoretical and Practical Implications" sub-section should be included in “Conclusion, Implications and Limitations” section.
5. Please strictly follow author guideline of the journal to correct the reference style, some more are not in line with the journal request.
Author Response
Responses to the Comments from Reviewer #3
- The current section design is very confusing. We suggest organizing your sections as “1.Introduction, 2.Theoretical Analysis and Hypothesis Development, 3.Methodology, 4.Result Analysis, 5.Discussion, ‘6.Conclusion, Implications and Limitations’ ”. All related sections should be carefully revised and changed. Sample papers can be found at AMJ, etc.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The current section design is based on a template that includes" 1. Introduction, 2. Materials, and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions, 6. Patents". in this study at the suggestion of reviewer 2, the literature review section has been separated. Also, at the suggestion of reviewer 2, the discussion has been divided into two sub-section "Main findings" and "Theoretical and Practical Implications".
- in the current Introduction section, why there are H1, H2 etc., and also there is Hypothesis 1(H1) at the end of this section (line-126) at the same time? Also, what is the current research gap? Why the reader should expect to understand something new by reading your paper (i.e., novelty)? Currently, more literature review is included.
Response: While there are many studies on the relationship between energy use and economic growth, most studies did not separate the two. Other studies looked at either the impact of renewable energy or nonrenewable energy. Some have compared the impact of the two. This study tries to fill that gap. Accordingly, unlike other studies, beyond estimating the impact of REC and NREC on growth, extended the analysis to two groups of developing and developed countries. This allows us to investigate and compare the effect of two types of energy consumption on economic growth.
- The current Conclusion section should be re-written, for the suggested section “Conclusion, Implications and Limitations”, also authors should start with your main findings in the sub-section "Main findings": author’s original thoughts and evaluation of the obtained results, and "Theoretical and Practical Implications" sub-section should be included in “Conclusion, Implications and Limitations” section.
Response: Done. Thanks!
- Please strictly follow author's guidelines in the journal to correct the reference style, some more are not in line with the journal request.
Response: Done. Thanks!
Again, we thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments. The comments and suggestions have helped improve the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is aimed at research of relationship between energy consumption and economic growth of selected developed and developing countries during 1993-2019. The authors explained the research methodology, identified its hypotheses, systematized data for 30 developed and 29 developing countries.
The authors took into account the previous comments and revised the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted now after below two small corrections:
1.Please explain why you directly delete your previous H1-H4 in the new version? What is the relationship between them and Hypothesis 1(H1)?
2.The reference list is too confusing, please do follow the style of the journal policy.
