A Decade of Forest Engineering: Achievements and Future Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well organized as a review paper and will significantly contribute to the study area. It is judged as almost acceptable with minor revision. The followings are the comments from present reviewer.
1. In the lines 53-54, the authors listed "the European Journal of Forest Engineering" as one of the three eminent forest engineering journals. However, no paper is referred in this review paper from "the European Journal of Forest Engineering". Appropriate explanation should be added here or a few papers should be referred in the main text.
2. The reference [58] is not referred in the main text. I guess that "[57]" in the line 315 would be correctly "[58]". Please check it.
That's all; thank you for the submission.
Author Response
Reviewer #1 - Comments and Suggestions for Authors
COMMENT: The manuscript is well organized as a review paper and will significantly contribute to the study area. It is judged as almost acceptable with minor revision. The followings are the comments from present reviewer.
RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your favorable appreciation of our work and for your encouraging words.
COMMENT:1. In the lines 53-54, the authors listed "the European Journal of Forest Engineering" as one of the three eminent forest engineering journals. However, no paper is referred in this review paper from "the European Journal of Forest Engineering". Appropriate explanation should be added here or a few papers should be referred in the main text.
RESPONSE: We have added a suitable EJFE paper in the quotations and Reference List, as suggested
COMMENT:2. The reference [58] is not referred in the main text. I guess that "[57]" in the line 315 would be correctly "[58]". Please check it.
RESPONSE: Sorry...It was more or less like that. We actually inverted the numbers in citations 57 and 58. We have now signalled that to the Editor, in the revised manuscript version
COMMENT:That's all; thank you for the submission.
RESPONSE: Thank you for your time and assistance. We appreciate that.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments to the authors:
Placing information on a wide range about Forest Engineering including past and future is an interesting initiative. The study allows learning about broadly understood details related to this topic. Issues contained in the study can be used by both field practitioners (e.g. harvesters operators, forest company owners) and by scientific community for further discussion. Therefore this work is a valuable contribution to Forest Engineering development.
General consideration of this text - in several places there are references to the situation in the United States, it may also be worth reaching for examples from other places, e.g. from Europe.
Detailed comments to the authors:
Line12: “define Forest Engineering as a unique discipline by providing definition” - twice the same meaning, maybe it's worth rewording
Line 124: (Wartkotsch et al 1987).
Line 126: (Sundberg 1988).
Line 217: it's worth to ad explanation of LCA abbreviation
Line 263: is: “harvest operators” I assume that it should be: “harvester operators”
Line 285-286 and 288-289 - very similar thread - it can be reworded
Line 314-315 and 3180319 – as above
Line 336: “more than a decade in some regions” – example and/or reference will be useful
Line 338: “the automatic harvesting data from manual operations” – something is missing e.g. download/upload…
Line 360: “next future”, just “future” will be enough.
Author Response
Reviewer #2 - Comments and Suggestions for Authors
COMMENT: Placing information on a wide range about Forest Engineering including past and future is an interesting initiative. The study allows learning about broadly understood details related to this topic. Issues contained in the study can be used by both field practitioners (e.g. harvesters operators, forest company owners) and by scientific community for further discussion. Therefore this work is a valuable contribution to Forest Engineering development.
RESPONSE: Thank you very much! We appreciate the encouragement and are quite grateful for your kind words and even kinder help through your comments below...
COMMENT: General consideration of this text - in several places there are references to the situation in the United States, it may also be worth reaching for examples from other places, e.g. from Europe.
RESPONSE: We have added reference to European examples, as suggested.
COMMENT: Line12: “define Forest Engineering as a unique discipline by providing definition” - twice the same meaning, maybe it's worth rewording
RESPONSE: Of course! We apologize for the very inelegant sentence...We have rephrased it and we hope it is now better
COMMENT: Line 124: (Wartkotsch et al 1987).
RESPONSE: Sorry! We normally introduce the quotes using the classic "author(s) name-date" format, then replace them with the numbers, but this time we forgot to remove the older format! Now it's done...
COMMENT: Line 126: (Sundberg 1988).
RESPONSE: As above...Sorry for that....
COMMENT: Line 217: it's worth to ad explanation of LCA abbreviation
RESPONSE: Sure...It is common praxis to develop all acronyms the first time they are introduced, and we forgot that. We have introduced a full explanation, in the revised manuscript version...
COMMENT: Line 263: is: “harvest operators” I assume that it should be: “harvester operators”
RESPONSE: Yes, of course. Sorry for the oversight...We have edited the term as suggested.
COMMENT: Line 285-286 and 288-289 - very similar thread - it can be reworded
RESPONSE: Correct. We have removed one of two sentences. They basically express the same concept and were therefore redundant.
COMMENT: Line 314-315 and 318-0319 – as above
RESPONSE: True. We have rephrased one of two sentences, so that the narrative is less repetitive...
COMMENT: Line 336: “more than a decade in some regions” – example and/or reference will be useful
RESPONSE: We have introduced the required example. Otherwise the sentence remained a bit too vague - we acknowledge that...
COMMENT: Line 338: “the automatic harvesting data from manual operations” – something is missing e.g. download/upload…
RESPONSE: Sorry for that: we have introduced the missing elements...
COMMENT: Line 360: “next future”, just “future” will be enough.
RESPONSE: Edited as suggested.
