Turkey’s 2023 Energy Strategies and Investment Opportunities for Renewable Energy Sources: Site Selection Based on ELECTRE

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is written on an interesting topic – how an emerging economy like Turkey can sustain its growing energy demand and where new energy sites should be established. I think the article is far from ready at the moment and I have a number of comments to improve it:

1. First of all, the whole article is full of various descriptive statistics, figures and charts which can be interesting but to a less extent. I would heavily decrease the amount of descriptive parts and would focus more on scientific issues.

2. The classic parts of a scientific article are somehow mixed. It would be very important to follow the logic of introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, especially regarding their contents.

3. As to introduction, the focus and motivation is poorly defined. Why it is important to analyse this topic, what is the aim exactly, how this study contributes to the literature and how the article is structured – these are the important issues here. I think tables and figures should be deleted from the introduction.

4. The second page gives us an overly general description of ‘world’s most important problems’. How this part is related to the storyline, especially considering the focus of the article?

5. Related to the previous comment, several general and sometimes strong arguments can be found in the text. These should be deleted or put in context.

“The most important problem of the world’s agenda is the environmental problems since the second half of the previous century until today”

“At this point, rational decision making by decision makers is crucial”.

6. The literature review is actually part of the introduction section and it is too general and narrow. A large number of other studies written on the topic should be cited and described in a separate section.

7. The various forms of energies described under section 2.1 seems to be overly general and looks as a textbook example at the moment. This section should definitely be shortened with more focus.

8. The fourth part seems to be a simple mathematical exercise on the plant selection problem, available in respective textbooks. How exactly this methodology differs from simple plant selection arithmetic and who have used this before with what kind of results?

9. I find recommendations quite general. Do we say that a region is better to be selected for an energy plant than another? Is this not too general? I thought concrete sites of plants would be better to compare. What a policy maker can do with current results?

Minor comments:

a. It is a general problem that I do not see any citation below the figures.

b. Which year tables and figures are about?

c. The numbering of different sections seem pretty odd. There are many duplications.

On the whole, I think a lot more work has to be done before publishing the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                            

Thank you for processing our article with great labour. Based on your following decision, we have considered all the comments and revised the manuscript and then corrected the text according to all comments and requests. You can see all corrections and explanations marked with red scripture throughout the text. In addition, as you will see below, the followings are our replies and explanations that you have requested from us to perform. Our replies and explanations are also marked with red scriptures as follows. If there still exist problems, please let me know to comply with them as soon as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper require only the modifies reported in yellow in the file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                            

Thank you for processing our article with great labour. Based on your following decision, we have considered all the comments and revised the manuscript and then corrected the text according to all comments and requests. You can see all corrections and explanations marked with red scripture throughout the text. In addition, as you will see below, the followings are our replies and explanations that you have requested from us to perform. Our replies and explanations are also marked with red scriptures as follows. If there still exist problems, please let me know to comply with them as soon as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is an interesting and ambitious effort to implement the ELECTRE mehod in the selection of RES investments opportunities in Turkey 2023.

However, the originality and the novelty of the paper is hidden and the narrative is limited to a single description of some opportunities without clarification of the key features which characterize the implementation of the ELECTRE method.

Moreover, the analysis (equation 1), some figures ( e.g Fig. 1) and the data methodology are not clearly presented. 

I recommend the authors to design again the research, taking into account the accuracy and the robustness that is required. .

In general the article needs further development and resubmission to be considered again.

Proofreading language is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                            

Thank you for processing our article with great labour. Based on your following decision, we have considered all the comments and revised the manuscript and then corrected the text according to all comments and requests. You can see all corrections and explanations marked with red scripture throughout the text. In addition, as you will see below, the followings are our replies and explanations that you have requested from us to perform. Our replies and explanations are also marked with red scriptures as follows. If there still exist problems, please let me know to comply with them as soon as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have fully revised their manuscript and I am now happy to accept it for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                            

Thank you for processing our article with great labour. Based on your following decision, we have considered all the comments and revised the manuscript and then corrected the text according to all comments and requests. You can see all corrections and explanations marked with red scripture throughout the text. In addition, as you will see below, the followings are our replies and explanations that you have requested from us to perform. Our replies and explanations are also marked with red scriptures as follows. If there still exist problems, please let me know to comply with them as soon as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been substantially improved. However there is some space for enhancement in terms of figure 7 explanation and the clear clarification of methodology in section 3 "results". There is inconsistency between some results. Analytical description is needed (nomenclature for e.g for X, i, j, etc.).

Last check is suggested for the language proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                            

Thank you for processing our article with great labour. Based on your following decision, we have considered all the comments and revised the manuscript and then corrected the text according to all comments and requests. You can see all corrections and explanations marked with red scripture throughout the text. In addition, as you will see below, the followings are our replies and explanations that you have requested from us to perform. Our replies and explanations are also marked with red scriptures as follows. If there still exist problems, please let me know to comply with them as soon as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx