Bringing Project-Based Learning into Renewable and Sustainable Energy Education: A Case Study on the Development of the Electric Vehicle EOLO
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Bringing Project-based Learning into Renewable and Sustainable Energy Education: A Case Study on the Development of the Electric Vehicle EOLO" claims a methodology based on a sustainable project to facilitate an education that includes environmental issues.
Although it is well written and presents the project-based learning methodology well applied with sustainable technology, the work presented does not meet the objectives of education for sustainable development.
In order to introduce care for the environment in the students' scale of values, much more motivational work and a more multidisciplinary group
Perhaps the work can be reconsidered as claiming different objectives, such as applying this methodology (based on projects) for sustainable projects.
The quality of Figures must be increased
English writing must improve
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for review our work. Please, read the responses to your queries or suggestions in the attached file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Notes on the review of the article:
1. Write out the number of students on line 127 in the same way as it was written on line 129;
2. Write out the word "approximately" on lines 165 and 215;
3. On line 173 of the article it is written that it is possible to see in Figure 1c that the turbines were installed horizontally. However, looking at the photograph in Figure 1c, it is not possible to verify the installation. In this way, it is necessary to adjust the text or replace the photograph with the detail of the installation of the turbines;
4. Figure 2 is presented in the article before the citation in the text;
5. It is necessary to define in the article whether regulations (line 221) or technical requirements (Table 1, item 3) will be observed, or even some standardization norm for electric vehicles that aims to guarantee the protection and safety of users against dangers in use and/or in case of accidents;
6. Make it clear in the text of the article that the rear lighting system does not provide for the function of turning on the reverse light;
7. Enlarge Figure 3 as it is illegible;
8. Correct in the text the citations of figures 5, 7 and 8 in lines 365, 404 and 539, respectively.
No comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for review our work. Please, read the responses to your queries or suggestions in the attached file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this research / case study 12 engineering students along with number of researcher participated for the EV. Which i believe is a massive research based on human source, So i would expect some major findings from the desired project, which is missing in this research.
Kindly address following questions in details
1) How can you determine the geometric tolerances of your EV?
2) Authors claimed that after installing 250W solar panel on roof, 15% efficiency was improved? How it was been calculated?
3) Results are quite deficient, it is strongly suggested to compare the authors model with other EV and conventional model?
4) Verification and validation study section should be added
5) In section 2.1 "design, monitoring and development of energy of electric vehicle.............CIMD made allience.................. "how the project and model are monitoring. Whereas CIMD results or comparison is also missing.
6) In different section especially in literature, authors number of time emphasized on human source but the true meaning of literature review is missing.
7) Research gap is missing
8) Results and discussion should be improved. There are many areas that must be addressed likewise the vehicle class, consumption, efficiency power, torque, power, transmission etc.
9) Overall the paper is more project based rather than scientific research
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for review our work. Please, read the responses to your queries or suggestions in the attached file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article deals with a current and important topic. I have certain reservations about the theoretical background section. The presented research need is not sufficiently linked to the previous text, as is usual in similar articles (knowledge gap).
The authors do not explain why it is important to know the perception of the students on learning, motivation, problems, and recommendations with the methodology.
Also, there is no explaining about the survey content – why exactly these questions? Explaining about meaningfulness of individual parts of survey content is missing, as well as the references to individual parts of the questionnaire to previous research dealing with the investigation of Project-based Learning into Renewable and Sustainable Energy Education.
The Conclusion should refer to studies which may or may not be in accordance to the findings of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for review our work. Please, read the responses to your queries or suggestions in the attached file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made the requested modifications, significantly improving the quality of their manuscript. I consider that the work could be published in its current form.
English needs to improve
Author Response
Thank you. We are pleased that the revisions meet your revision criteria.
Concerning English, the whole manuscript was reviewed.
Best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
Author has addressed all the previous quereies but i still beleive there is a still room of improvement in terms of scientific contribution of the research. Overall paper is improved and recommended for publication
English language fine withMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you. We are pleased that the revisions meet your revision criteria. We tried to improve the manuscript as much as possible.
Concerning English, the whole manuscript was reviewed.
Best regards.
