Evaluation of the Efficiency of Maritime Transport Using a Network Slacks-Based Measure (SBM) Approach: A Case Study on the Korean Coastal Ferry Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please add a list of symbols and variables

Line 47: Marine Transportation Act.  - Please add a reference

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments besides the literature could be extended to more globally literature including experiences from other countries than South Korea.

But the possible results of the extension are not sure whether they give an added value to the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper “Efficiency evaluation for sustainable offshore ferry 2 transportation using network SBM model” has been submitted for publication in the journal “Sustainability” [sustainability-1208040]. The research evaluates the relative transport efficiency of offshore 12 ferry operators through undesirable safety-related output. This is a considerably well-written paper, that reads smoothly (so, no necessity of a grammar revision) and needs no major revision before publication. The only points that I underline for the sake of authors:

1. The concept of transit quality is defective throughout the paper. Please write a couple of lines that underline this more specifically. Arguments can be taken here: Nocera S. (2010): An Operational Approach for Quality Evaluation in Public Transport Services. Ingegneria Ferroviaria 65-4: 363-383, and Nocera S. (2011): The key role of quality assessment in public transport policy. Traffic Engineering & Control 52-9: 394-398;
2. In the variables of the model, it should be more clearly specified what happens in the logic of the model when only some of the variables of table 2.1 are met in the positive, for instance when a perfectly safe service requires economic resources from the service producer;

• Isotonicity is not the only property that should be guaranteed, in order to have meaningful results. The authors should also discuss the case of input numbers of scant precision;

1. I would also have some more discussion on the potential of generalization of this paper. What happens for instance outside of Korea, or when only some of the key variables are available?

These four points are the only reasons that prevent the paper to be published in the current form. None of these options seems insurmountable, but needs to be carefully looked at

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Good enough for the goal

Author Response

Thank you very much for your notice of acceptance for our revised manuscript.