PONE-D-23-41388Renewable energy for sustainable development in China: Discourse analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. RAZA,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos, 2 PhDs, 3 MSc, 2 MA, MEng, 2 BA, BSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please clearly specify the data sources in the Methods section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

   "This paper is supported by the China, the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No.21BJY113)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

   "This paper is supported by the China, the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No.21BJY113)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This paper is supported by the China, the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No.21BJY113)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Can be made available upon request]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present paper is highly interesting and is a major contribution to scientific progress. The paper deals with an interesting topic, especially for RES. This paper represents a good attempt.

This paper is well organised. It has a good structure and provides an easy and meaningful reading. The English writing is acceptable.

I recommend the publication of the paper under the following minor revisions:

1. It is necessary to be included further references related with the role OF RES

E.g.

Zerva, A., Tsantopoulos, G., Grigoroudis, E and Arabatzis, G. (2018). "Perceived citizens’ satisfaction with climate change stakeholders using a multicriteria decision analysis approach". Environmental Science and Policy, 82:60-70.

Kyriakopoulos, G.L., Arabatzis, G., Tsialis, P., Ioannou, K. (2018). "Electricity consumption and RES plants in Greece: Typologies of regional units". Renewable Energy. 127, pp. 134-144.

Eftaxias, A., Passa, E.A., Michailidis, C., Daoutis, C., Kantartzis, A., Diamantis, V. Residual Forest Biomass in Pinus Stands: Accumulation and Biogas Production Potential. Energies, 2022, 15(14), 5233.

Arabatzis, G and Malesios, Ch. (2013). "Pro-Environmental attitudes of users and not users of fuelwood in a rural area of Greece”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22: 621-630.

Tampakis, S., Arabatzis, G., Tsantopoulos, G and Rerras, I. (2017). "Citizens' views on electricity use, savings and production from renewable energy sources: A case study from a Greek Island". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79: 39-49.

Zografidou, E., Petridis, K., Petridis, N and Arabatzis, G. (2017). "A financial approach to renewable energy production in Greece using goal programming". Renewable Energy, 108: 37–51.

Reviewer #2: I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Renewable Energy for Sustainable Development in China: Discourse Analysis," and I commend you on the thorough exploration of the subject matter. Overall, I find the study to be well-structured, with clear and concise language, demonstrating a commendable level of proficiency in English. The manuscript holds scientific value and provides valuable insights into the economic and environmental impacts of renewable energy initiatives in China.

Your comprehensive literature review demonstrates a solid foundation for the study, but I would suggest enhancing it further, particularly in relation to the broader context of the renewable energy strategy. Expanding on this aspect could strengthen the theoretical framework and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the research landscape.

I appreciate the rigorous research methods employed in the analysis of data, which contributes to the credibility of your findings. The paper effectively addresses the discourse surrounding renewable energy for sustainable development in China, making it relevant for policymakers and researchers in the field.

Moreover, I recommend enriching the conclusions section with additional findings to provide a more robust summary of the key takeaways from your study. This could enhance the overall impact of your research and make it more valuable for readers seeking insights into the subject matter.

In conclusion, I believe that with these minor revisions, your manuscript can achieve an even higher level of quality. I appreciate the effort you have put into your work and hope that my comments prove helpful in refining your manuscript. I recommend the publication of your study, anticipating that it will contribute meaningfully to the discourse on renewable energy and sustainable development in China.

Reviewer #3: Your manuscript offers an insightful exploration into the RES development in China. For future revisions to further enhance the quality and significance of your research, I suggest considering the following improvements:

1. The language in some parts of the text requires enhancement. For example, in page 4, the sentence “In addition, the focus has been on national climate change and mitigation of carbon emissions by applying renewables…”. What is “national climate change”?

2. So, please make a thorough review of the manuscript for language improvement.

3. According to https://chineseclimatepolicy.oxfordenergy.org/book-content/domestic-policies/renewable-power/ feed-in tariffs are being replaced with a range of policies and market mechanisms. The afore mentioned website contains a number of such policies and mechanisms. Please reflect this information in the introduction and in your analysis.

4. Considering the pressing issue of our times is climate change, and that any reduction of the clinker content by e.g. ash from banana leaves has the aim to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions, please consider linking the introduction of the paper to global warming and climate change. This approach not only contextualizes your topic within a global challenge but also offers a comprehensive perspective on the role of the replacement of clinker with ash from banana leaves in climate mitigation action plans. Reference these studies for support:

• Akkermans et al (2023). Exploring long-term mitigation pathways for a net zero Tajikistan. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 28(3), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-023-10053-w

• Sebos et al (2020). Methodological framework for the quantification of GHG emission reductions from climate change mitigation actions. Strategic planning for energy and the environment, 219-242. doi: 10.13052/spee1048-4236.391411

• Kyriakopoulos et al (2023). Enhancing Climate Neutrality and Resilience through Coordinated Climate Action: Review of the Synergies between Mitigation and Adaptation Actions. Climate, 11(5), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11050105

• Kyriakopoulos et al (2023). Benefits and Synergies in Addressing Climate Change via the Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in Greece. Applied Sciences, 13(4), 2216. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042216

5. Which are the main stakeholders in decisions about developing RES in China? I consider that a discussion about the mapping and analysis of stakeholders influencing relevant actions and policies, along with their perceptions, would add value to the paper. This approach can provide a comprehensive view of the various factors at play. Refer to:

• Sebos et al. Stakeholder perceptions on climate change impacts and adaptation actions in Greece. Euro-Mediterr J Environ Integr (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-023-00396-w

• Ioanna et al. Stakeholder mapping and analysis for climate change adaptation in Greece. Euro-Mediterr J Environ Integr 7, 339–346 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-022-00317-3

6. For a broader perspective, consider examining co-design principles in formulating carbon mitigation policies, which may offer insights into collaborative approaches for climate neutrality as well as resilience. Please refer to the study:

• Sebos et al: Climate-Resilient Urban Regeneration: Transforming School Yards for a Sustainable and Adaptive Future, EMS Annual Meeting 2023, Bratislava, Slovakia, 4–8 Sep 2023, EMS2023-73, https://doi.org/10.5194/ems2023-73, 2023

7. Please enrich the “Discussion” by adding innovative mitigation options, such as energy communities. You may consult the paper:

• Losada-Puente et al. Cross-Case Analysis of the Energy Communities in Spain, Italy, and Greece: Progress, Barriers, and the Road Ahead. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14016. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814016

8. It would be beneficial for the paper to enhance the conclusion by providing a more detailed discussion of your study's limitations and uncertainties. This transparency will add to the credibility and scope for future research directions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ioannis Sebos

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Renewable energy for sustainable development in China: Discourse analysis

PONE-D-23-41388R1

Dear Dr. Raza,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos, 2 PhDs, 3 MSc, 2 MA, MEng, 2 BA, BSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present paper is highly interesting and is a major contribution to scientific progress. This paper is well organised. It has a good structure and provides an easy and meaningful reading.

All comments have been addressed.

Accepted.

Reviewer #3: All comments were addressed. Language of the paper has been improved.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ioannis Sebos

**********