Applying Roadmapping and Conceptual Modeling to the Energy Transition: A Local Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper discusses the use of engineering systems methods (roadmapping and conceptual modelling) to the transition to sustainable energy, illustrated with the example of energy transition in Best, The Netherlands.
The paper is interesting in terms of the combination of application and conceptual thinking contained in it, and warrants publication even though the research is ongoing. There is novelty and power in combining practical engineering systems thinking and roadmapping to support decision making and action for complex systems-of-systems challenges facing humanity, illustrated with a real-world example. The paper addresses gaps in the literature and practice, and the principles described can be applied to other complex system transitions.
Substantial improvements have been made throughout the paper, in response to reviewer comments on the original submission. Although the paper is rather unusual in academic terms, given the applied problem-solving nature of the research, I recommend it be accepted for publication. Addressing real world problems requires approaches such as described in this paper – e.g. reflective application of engineering methods in action research, in addition to more scientifically-oriented studies.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments and open mind to an unusual paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract is still too brief. It does not provide the reader with a concise yet comprehensive picture of the problem statement, objective, methods, result and conclusion. • The biggest issue with this work is the contribution. It is a high-level and very broad analysis. Nothing is adequately quantified. I don’t see how this work will benefit researchers in the field. This has not been adequately address in the second submission. • “The paper follows and complies with the MDPI template. This is sometimes messy”. There is nothing wrong with the MDPI template. It is the structure the author has adopted that is messy. The overreliance on bullets points, not justifying captions, basic grammatical errors, not spelling out numbers under 10, not leaving a space between numbers and units (e.g. 10km). These are all basic formatting and writing errors that should not be in a scientific paper submission. • The figures are still messy. For example figure 4 has non-English language text covered by arrow and text bows (the reader will not be able to interpret this). Figure 7 has light grey text that is not legible. And so on. • There is no concrete conclusion in the conclusion section that is backed up by the results.Author Response
The abstract is still too brief. It does not provide the reader with a concise yet comprehensive picture of the problem statement, objective, methods, result and conclusion.
Response:
Extended the abstract to clarify problem statement and objective. Added the research method to the abstract.
The biggest issue with this work is the contribution. It is a high-level and very broad analysis. Nothing is adequately quantified. I don’t see how this work will benefit researchers in the field.
Response:
This is a special issue on systems engineering and sustainability. The challenge of systems engineering is that it is transdisciplinary, making it challenging to adequately quantify both the problem and solution space as well as its research. The paper tries to avoid making claims that it cannot support.
This has not been adequately address in the second submission.
- “The paper follows and complies with the MDPI template. This is sometimes messy”. There is nothing wrong with the MDPI template. It is the structure the author has adopted that is messy. The overreliance on bullets points, not justifying captions, basic grammatical errors, not spelling out numbers under 10, not leaving a space between numbers and units (e.g. 10km). These are all basic formatting and writing errors that should not be in a scientific paper submission.
Response:
Went through the paper and figures and replaced a few instances of numbers under 10, and spaces between numbers and units. I apologize for any remaining grammatical errors. These may have slipped through the rather critical review by an American academic
- The figures are still messy. For example figure 4 has non-English language text covered by arrow and text bows (the reader will not be able to interpret this).
Response:
All text is now replaced by English text.
Figure 7 has light grey text that is not legible.
Response:
Replaced by Figure with readable text.
And so on. • There is no concrete conclusion in the conclusion section that is backed up by the results.
Response:
The research in this stage doesn’t warrant more firm conclusions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
“Reviewer: There is no concrete conclusion in the conclusion section that is backed up by the results. Response: The research in this stage doesn’t warrant more firm conclusions.” This a major weakness. All published studies should be able to draw definitive conclusions from the results, be they positive, negative or neutral. This paper has many flaws such as this. The author must add a “limitations” section outlining all of limitations of this study, so the reader is made fully aware.
Once this is complete, reasonable changes will have been implemented regarding the outstanding issues presented in the first and second round reviews. However, the quality of the writing, formatting and structuring is still below standard for Journal publication. The authors may lack experience in publishing research in academic Journals. A senior academic should be consulted. Once the quality of English and sentence structuring has been upgraded to a publishable level, the paper may be considered for processing. I will leave the editor decide whether the English is up to scratch for this Journal or not.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper discusses the use of engineering systems methods (roadmapping and conceptual modelling) to the transition to sustainable energy, illustrated with the example of energy transition in Best, The Netherlands.
The paper is interesting in terms of the combination of application and conceptual thinking contained in it, and warrants publication even though the research is ongoing. There is novelty and power in combining practical engineering systems thinking and roadmapping to support decision making and action for complex systems-of-systems challenges facing humanity, illustrated with a real-world example. The paper addresses gaps in the literature and practice, and the principles described can be applied to other complex system transitions.
However, the paper would benefit from some further work to clarify the contribution. In particular, I suggest adding a table, and/or annotated figure, in the discussion section to clearly set out a summary of the features / characteristics of roadmapping and modeling that address system-of-system aspect aspects (with reference to Section 2), and how these are specifically illustrated in the case study. Also, a final concluding section should be included, that summarises the key principles embodied in the approach and their relevance to practice in general (i.e. other systems beyond the case study), and recommendations for future research and practice, recognising the issues associated with adoption noted in the discussion (in particular social acceptance and consensus required for collective action).
The combination of systems modelling and roadmapping is quite novel (in the academic literature at least), which is surprising given the systems-orientation of both methods, but there is considerable merit in doing so, especially in terms of engineering systems approaches (e.g. Fig 3 and related text). A few relevant papers on ‘model-based roadmapping’ in aerospace applications have been published in the past few years, and reference to this should be included in this paper.
The main elements of field work in the paper relate to student projects, which is fine – I appreciate the applied nature of these, which provide useful validation and illustration of the systems principles that are the main contribution of the paper, associated with the supervisor’s knowledge and experience. Reference to this field work is rather informal and anecdotal, which might mask the significance of the ideas in the paper to readers. I recommend that the student outputs be referenced formally, and the field work be positioned clearly as applications to test and verify the principles systems principles & techniques at the heart of the paper (e.g. that fact that fieldwork is associated with a degree can included in the reference, as ‘Masters dissertation’, for example, without overly elaborating this feature in the main body of the paper. The contribution of the students can be formally included in an Acknowledgements section.
On page 5 ‘the Corona situation’ is referred to, which would benefit from expanding slightly, in terms of what the impact of this on the research and practice may have been. Please replace ‘Corona’ with ‘COVID-19 pandemic’ for clarity.
The general standard of English is good, although it is recommended that the manuscript be checked by a native English speaker if possible to correct minor grammatical errors (e.g. use of indefinite article), and carefully proof read for clarity of argument and expression.
I suggest a slight change to the title, to:
Applying roadmapping and conceptual modeling to the energy transition: a local case study
(i.e. change ‘on’ to ‘to’, and replace semi-colon with colon (or hyphen)
Reviewer 2 Report
Applying Roadmapping and Conceptual Modeling on the Energy Transition; a Local Case Study is presented.
The abstract is inadequate. The reader doesn’t get a concise and comprehensive summary of the work. It is very brief. There is very little information on the materials and methodologies and the results are very scant. It is lacking essential information regarding the results. This abstract needs to be greatly improved.
Even though several papers are referenced and briefly summarised in the in section 1 and 2, it is difficult to get a feel for where this study lies in the context of previously published work from the lit review in this section. A more comprehensive and holistic lit review in regards to the state of the art and the application of cognate raodmapping techniques would give a feel for where this research lies in regards to past studies.
The author must explicitly delineate his/her method from the existing ones, and must explicitly state the benefits of this method to clearly define the original contribution of this paper.
The novel contribution of the paper must be clearly defined.
The figures in the results are messy. Figure 5 is difficult to read.
Where is the critical analysis?
Cognate works should be compared and discussed in the discussion section.
What are the limitations of this work?
What general outcomes can be applied to other similar studies?
Use proper references instead of inserting links into figures and footnotes
The paper is poorly formatted, it is very messy in places
Why are no conclusions drawn from the results?
