Routes Planning Models for Railway Transport Systems in Relation to Passengers’ Demand
Laura Bieker-Walz
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper aims to develop multi-stage models to optimize the development plan of the railway system. Although the topic is interesting, it’s not well-written and needs major revisions in some sections to be clear for readers.
1- Comparing the abstract and conclusion, I suggest authors summarize the abstract and extend the conclusion. There are some extra explanations in the abstract that might not be necessary. The conclusion also needs more significant results and suggestions.
2- Authors should put more effort into explaining what this paper considers distinctly than others. The research gap is not clarified well. Also, the structure of the paper should be represented at the end of the introduction.
3- Authors mentioned “railway tourism,” while their subject could be referred to any routine travelers within the network. I would suggest using another word or make it clear.
4- The literature review is greatly missing in the paper. It is expected to describe previous literature by explaining methods and results.
5- the method section is confusing and it`s challenging for readers to follow the model specifications.
- Authors defined different N (N1,N2, …) as conditional variants, it`s not well described that whether they are alternative solutions of the model (which their results are compared to reach the optimum) or just assumptions?
- What are the risks on page 6 line 180?
- How are components of G function measured? Page 7 lines 223-228.
- More explanation is needed on page 8 line 262.
- Page 10 line 374, there are no details considered for the template SHK and its components.
6- I would rather see an example showing the appropriateness of the method for such problems.
Minor comments:
7- Authors are suggested not to use bullets.
8- Page 2, Line 62, use the same unit for showing the progress: kilometer or euros.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 1
This paper aims to develop multi-stage models to optimize the development plan of the railway system. Although the topic is interesting, it’s not well-written and needs major revisions in some sections to be clear for readers.
- Comparing the abstract and conclusion, I suggest authors summarize the abstract and extend the conclusion. There are some extra explanations in the abstract that might not be necessary. The conclusion also needs more significant results and suggestions.
Abstract and conclusions have been extended.
- Authors should put more effort into explaining what this paper considers distinctly than others. The research gap is not clarified well. Also, the structure of the paper should be represented at the end of the introduction.
The paper was significantly extended, a review of literary sources was added, two Figures were described, calculations on a conditional example were added. The research of the authors differs from others that the proposed economic and mathematical model will help potential investors to invest and compensate their own expenses as efficiently as possible. With that, the model developed by us takes into account all types of constraints that a potential investor may face.
3- Authors mentioned “railway tourism,” while their subject could be referred to any routine travelers within the network. I would suggest using another word or make it clear.
We have added a well-founded description of scientific sources, in which it is described the expediency of introducing exactly railway tourism because there is a demand from tourists. Therefore, we recommend using our model when planning the implementation of exactly railway tourism.
- The literature review is greatly missing in the paper. It is expected to describe previous literature by explaining methods and results.
The review of literary sources has been added.
5- the method section is confusing and it`s challenging for readers to follow the model specifications.
With the help of Figure 1 and a short description of the algorithm for the construction of an economic and mathematical model, we tried to show (for the reader) the sequential steps in the implementation of railway tourism, from the stage of assessing the availability of tourist and transport infrastructure and rolling stock to income distribution between the investors.
Authors defined different N (N1,N2, …) as conditional variants, it`s not well described that whether they are alternative solutions of the model (which their results are compared to reach the optimum) or just assumptions?
It is understood that depending on the tourist and transport infrastructure (available or the one that can be built), several tourist routes can be designed. They will differ in travel time, train comfort, investment volumes, demand for these routes, and depending on these and other factors, as a result, it will be possible to plan the optimal activation of various tourist routes. This will help opening routes one after the other, and the most profitable route will be opened the first.
What are the risks on page 6 line 180?
We mean a wide range of risks – from falling demand for one or another tourist route from tourists’ side to a sharp increase in the cost of tourist rolling stock by manufacturers and many other risks.
How are components of G function measured? Page 7 lines 223-228.
The components of the function G are measured separately, it is a tolerance region, that is, previously we determine the tolerance limits for each index, which is taken into account when planning tourist routes.
More explanation is needed on page 8 line 262.
We recommend including routes in a group of optimal ones that are in a specific expected scenario for the implementation of failure (changes in the processes of track development, purchase of rolling stock units, lack of timely investment support, etc.).
Page 10 line 374, there are no details considered for the template SHK and its components.
Due to the limited number of routes, as well as preliminary ordering, the optimal decision will be calculated by the final number of iterations. Let us develop models of choosing alternative tourist routes, considering the conditions of risk and co-operation. To do this, we will consider the task of planning and selecting the introduction of TR with regard to random states . Such planning models under risk conditions arise when probabilities (or subjective probabilities) of possible state perturbations or system parameters are known [34]. When modeling models in this case, we define the scenarios of failures for each possible change, that will be described by a separate template . When modeling the optimal planning, we determine the value of the characteristic parameters of the conditions of uncertainty , as well as for assessment of additional costs Hi required to compensate the changes . In doing so, values are set by expertise. Let us define states of changes as ranges in values of some deviations of total target figures.
6- I would rather see an example showing the appropriateness of the method for such problems.
Calculation example of a part of the developed model on the example of two conditional tourist routes by railway, which differs by many factors – from the type of travel time to the number of annual investments.
Minor comments:
7- Authors are suggested not to use bullets.
8- Page 2, Line 262, use the same unit for showing the progress: kilometer or euros.
kilometer
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Reviewer 2 Report
The objective of the paper seems to shift as it develops from the title to the conclusion, while most effort seems to focus on tourist transportation on the railway. The title has its focus stated as "passengers demand", but within the paper, it seems that "tourist demand" is what has been focussed on. The authors should amend the paper to discuss more consistently throughout.
The authors should present more background statistics especially on usage of railways by tourists to give better insights into the problem and better support for the solution algorithm and maybe the results.
While Figures 1 and 2 appear clear and detailed, the authors should provide more structured discussion in the text to help readers to understand the working behind the lines and shapes presented in the figures.
In section 4, if real data is not available, results based on simulated networks and data should be provided by authors to help to better illustrate the problem formulation and solution algorithm, and whether the results are meaningful or applicable to the real problem intended to be solved.
If the above information can be provided, the conclusions will then be more justified.
Throughout the paper, there are minor terminologies and typo errors that need to be looked at by the authors more thoroughly. Some of them are:
line 88: "operating companies.s"
Figure 1: "emergence" should be "emergency"? "quality definiteness" should be "quality consistency"? "open" should be "openness"? ...etc.
line 171: "The authors approved the following..." should be "The authors assumed the followings..."?
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 2
The objective of the paper seems to shift as it develops from the title to the conclusion, while most effort seems to focus on tourist transportation on the railway. The title has its focus stated as "passengers demand", but within the paper, it seems that "tourist demand" is what has been focussed on. The authors should amend the paper to discuss more consistently throughout.
The authors should present more background statistics especially on usage of railways by tourists to give better insights into the problem and better support for the solution algorithm and maybe the results.
The material regarding the popularity of railway tourist routes in the world has been added. (in Introduction and Brief Literature Review sections).
While Figures 1 and 2 appear clear and detailed, the authors should provide more structured discussion in the text to help readers to understand the working behind the lines and shapes presented in the figures.
Description of Figure 1 has done.
Description of Figure 2 has done
In section 4, if real data is not available, results based on simulated networks and data should be provided by authors to help to better illustrate the problem formulation and solution algorithm, and whether the results are meaningful or applicable to the real problem intended to be solved.
Multi-criteria multi-stage planning.
The given planning models of the railway tourism regional development are formed provided there are definite conditions of interests of the united investment center. That is why the maximum values of the total income are represented as optimum criteria. The models mentioned above do not envisage participation in the project and competition with several investors (UH(K)) who are interested in the urgent development of the different tourism routes. We are to consider briefly some problems of formalization of the competition mechanisms and their efficiency analysis. First of all, the given criteria are based on the rule of the external solution of the conflicts among UH (K). In this case, the mechanism of the redistribution of the obtained maximum income is established outside the planning model. The creation and realization of such a mechanism is connected with the solution of many non-formal problems, which are not discussed in this paper. The game principle of the guaranteed result is offered to be used as a method of conflict solution UH (K), which realize the demand of the equality of the infrastructure investors
, (21)
where V – is a value of K-investor׳s income, and Dk – the volume of their investment. The realization of the planning model with the criteria (21) permits to choose tourists routes and the trip frequencies which provide income UH (K) corresponding to their contribution in the project of the railway tourism development. We are to analyze the numerical realization of the calculation algorithm of the choice of the tourism routes variants in the conventional example (Tables 1-4).
The example of the calculation of income in the tourism routes variants.
The results of the calculated net value of the given routes according to the Table 4 and the formula NPV = –I+ are given in Table 1. In this, i is a discount stake, an accepted i = 11.
Table 1
|
The route number |
Money flow before and after re-distribution of the annual expenses, in thousands, US dollars |
|
|
1 |
93 081 |
36 204 |
|
2 |
534 739,53 |
-143 456,79 |
Source: development of authors
Thus, the re-distribution of the planned annual expenses and money flows results in substantial changes of the given net value of every project for tourism route development.
Table 2
|
The route number |
I |
B |
B |
B |
B |
|
1 |
22 478 |
50 000 |
50 000 |
91 000 |
35 483,2 |
|
2 |
15 000 |
500 000 |
500 000 |
2 000 000 |
837 737,6 |
Source: development of authors
Table 2 (continued)
|
The route number |
I |
Đź |
Đź |
Đź |
Đź |
|
1 |
22 478 |
20 000 |
27 560 |
175 000 |
100 000 |
|
2 |
15 000 |
500 000 |
1 128 800 |
800 000 |
1 200 000 |
Source: development of authors
We are to give a conventional calculation as for two-stage models in order to choose an optimal variant. For example, it is necessary to choose a better route from two chosen ones taking into consideration uncertainty of the number of tourists (Table 3).
Table 3
|
The route number |
Expenses, in thousands, US dollars |
The number of tourists, people |
||
|
1000–3000 |
3000–8000 |
8000–12000 |
||
|
Certainty=0,2 |
Certainty=0,1 |
Certainty=0,7 |
||
|
Income 1, dollars |
Income 2, dollars |
Income 3, dollars |
||
|
1 |
226 483,2 |
80 640 |
161 280 |
322 560 |
|
2 |
2 839 737,6 |
907 200 |
1 814 400 |
3 628 800 |
Source: development of authors
Table 4
|
The route number |
The money flow with the account of the uncertainty of the tourists quantity, thousand dollars |
|
1 |
31 564,8 |
|
2 |
63 302,4 |
Source: development of authors
The results of calculations in Tables 1 and 4 represent considerable planning possibilities of tourism operators¢ activities thanks to the optimal choice of the succession of routes introduction. It should be performed on the basis of the models of the tourism potential development which are proposed in this paper.
If the above information can be provided, the conclusions will then be more justified.
Conclusions have been expanded.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The motivation, objectives and pertinent literature on the topic is seriously lacking in this study. What is the fundamental motivation of this study? It is unclear why the authors focus solely on tourism aspect of railway operation design. The objectives and the purpose of this work in relation to the operations design are not well established. Other work in the field of railway operations design are not presented at all.
2. A research model is presented abruptly, again without developing sufficient motivation for the analysis and research approach.
3. No case study is presented implementing the model developed in this work.
4. The conclusions section is written in a manner to summarize work rather. It fails to provide conclusive insights other than what has already been established in the work.
Overall, this work is poorly organized, the language is not coherent, the objectives are not well presented and motivated, prior work in this field is not presented, research approach is not introduced, a case study for analysis is missing. Authors must redevelop this work from bottom up.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 3
- The motivation, objectives and pertinent literature on the topic is seriously lacking in this study. What is the fundamental motivation of this study? It is unclear why the authors focus solely on tourism aspect of railway operation design. The objectives and the purpose of this work in relation to the operations design are not well established. Other work in the field of railway operations design are not presented at all.
A review of scientific sources regarding the organization of tourist railway transportation has been added.
- A research model is presented abruptly, again without developing sufficient motivation for the analysis and research approach.
Descriptions of Figures 1 and 2 have been added, their presence in the article is substantiated.
- No case study is presented implementing the model developed in this work.
Partial calculation of the model has been added
- The conclusions section is written in a manner to summarize work rather. It fails to provide conclusive insights other than what has already been established in the work.
Conclusions have been expanded.
Overall, this work is poorly organized, the language is not coherent, the objectives are not well presented and motivated, prior work in this field is not presented, research approach is not introduced, a case study for analysis is missing. Authors must redevelop this work from bottom up.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper "Routes Planning Models for Railway Transport Systems in 2 Relation to Passengers Demand" presents an approach to optimize and plan railway transport for touristic activities.
The paper is well written and structured. The motivation part is clearly stated and references to relevant literature is provided. Overall the quality of the paper is good but I have some comments/remarks:
The purpose of Figure 1 and 2 is not clear to me. They seem to be not relevant and can be deleted. If this is not the case it would be good if the main idea would be stated in the corresponding paragraph.
Page 8: The description of the algorithm is clearly shown an UML diagram would help to make it more concisely.
In the Conclusion it would be good if the main result would be stated again.
After the conclusion a template text is provided which have to be deleted for the final version of the paper ("Appendix")
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 4
The purpose of Figure 1 and 2 is not clear to me. They seem to be not relevant and can be deleted. If this is not the case it would be good if the main idea would be stated in the corresponding paragraph.
Descriptions of Figures 1 and 2 have been added.
Page 8: The description of the algorithm is clearly shown an UML diagram would help to make it more concisely.
We consider it essential to leave the description of the algorithm using Figure 2 and a textual description on page 8, after an explanation of Figures 1 and 2 we hope that the algorithm will be more understandable for a reader.
In the Conclusion it would be good if the main result would be stated again.
Conclusions have been expanded.
After the conclusion a template text is provided which have to be deleted for the final version of the paper ("Appendix")
Extra templates have been deleted
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto, Larysa Neduzha
Reviewer 5 Report
It would be appropriate to supplement the article with a specific case study with the application of this model for Railway Transport Systems in Relation to Passengers Demand.
It is necessary to supplement part manuscript Author Contributions.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 5
It would be appropriate to supplement the article with a specific case study with the application of this model for Railway Transport Systems in Relation to Passengers Demand.
The demand of potential tourists by railway was studied using a solid analysis in the functioning of dozens of tourist railways in the world. In addition, the authors investigated and independently conducted research regarding the study of demand for railway tourist traffic, in particular in Ukraine. But unfortunately, the scope of the article does not make it possible to give the results of calculations, tests of hypotheses about certainty, and other actions to the full extent. Perhaps the study and prediction of demand for tourist railway traffic, a detailed study of factors affecting the final tourist’s choice regarding the own travel will become the topic of next authors’ researches.
It is necessary to supplement part manuscript Author Contributions.
The authors equally contributed to the present research and to the preparation of the paper.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto, Larysa Neduzha
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for providing a great revision to the paper which increases the quality of your work clearly. I think it just needs some more revisions to be accepted:
1- I suggest authors to combine the intro and the background in a section (named Introduction).
2- Regarding my previous comments, the structure of the paper should be represented at the end of the introduction.
3- The background section needs to be reconstructed as it currently has some paragraphs with only 2,3 sentences/lines. Please try to present this section (and also the literature review) in a more consistent way by bringing related subjects in specifics paragraphs/texts.
4- Please add your explanations and response to my comment about the risk definition in the text.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 1
Thanks for providing a great revision to the paper which increases the quality of your work clearly. I think it just needs some more revisions to be accepted:
1- I suggest authors to combine the intro and the background in a section (named Introduction).
Introduction and the background were combined.
2- Regarding my previous comments, the structure of the paper should be represented at the end of the introduction.
Done.
3- The background section needs to be reconstructed as it currently has some paragraphs with only 2,3 sentences/lines. Please try to present this section (and also the literature review) in a more consistent way by bringing related subjects in specifics paragraphs/texts.
Done.
4- Please add your explanations and response to my comment about the risk definition in the text.
The risk definition was added.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Reviewer 2 Report
Substantial changes have been made to strengthen the aspects of route planning with consideration of tourist activities. Numerical results were also employed to better illustrate the model. Here are some further comments for the authors to consider to fine-tune the paper.
- The "Passengers Demand" in the title should be "Passengers' Demand" or "Passenger Demand".
- The review of different railway systems in the Background section seems repetitive. The authors should further streamline the discussion or use a table to illustrate the information concisely.
- There are noticeable number of gramatical errors in this paper. The authors should double check and correct them when finalising the paper. Some examples are such as:
- lines 98-99: "most fast-developing" could be "fastest-developing", "The profit of ... is been fast growing" should be "The profit of ... has been growing".
- line 137: "For tourists are offered ..." ?
- line 309: suggest to rephrase it to make it more comprehensible.
- "systemacity" should be "systematicity".
- There are more throughout the paper.
- The left alignment of paragraphs went off in a number of pages.
- A number of double hyposophies were shown as << and >>.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 2
Substantial changes have been made to strengthen the aspects of route planning with consideration of tourist activities. Numerical results were also employed to better illustrate the model. Here are some further comments for the authors to consider to fine-tune the paper.
- The "Passengers Demand" in the title should be "Passengers' Demand" or "Passenger Demand".
Done.
The review of different railway systems in the Background section seems repetitive. The authors should further streamline the discussion or use a table to illustrate the information concisely.
Done.
There are noticeable number of gramatical errors in this paper. The authors should double check and correct them when finalising the paper. Some examples are such as:
- lines 98-99: "most fast-developing" could be "fastest-developing", "The profit of ... is been fast growing" should be "The profit of ... has been growing".
- line 137: "For tourists are offered ..." ?
- line 309: suggest to rephrase it to make it more comprehensible.
- "systemacity" should be "systematicity".
- There are more throughout the paper.
Corrected.
The left alignment of paragraphs went off in a number of pages.
Corrected.
- A number of double hyposophies were shown as << and >>.
Done.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The sentence framing is confusing in certain paragraphs throughout the work. Certain sentences could have been explained in much simpler terms by use of fewer but more direct vocabulary. Below is a non-exhaustive list of example sentences from the manuscript.
- Line 40-41. Instead of "promotes the satisfaction of the aesthetic needs", one can write "fulfills the aesthetic needs".
- Line 42-43. "Railway transport is one of those types that provides the branches of the world economy by freight..." can be, "Railway transport is fundamental to world economy as it moves passengers and tourists, as well as hauls freight and luggage."
- Line 51-52. "use of land by various types of transport" can simply be "transportation land use".
Such rephrasing of sentences as suggested above can improve the overall readability of the manuscript. At the moment, certain paragraphs are hard to follow. Please improve wherever possible the use of language.
2. It is unclear what railway tourism is? Does railway tourism mean connecting major tourist hubs or is it the railway itself being a tourist attraction as is suggested with examples of narrow gauge in the background section.
If it is former, then it should be made clear with relevant examples in the background section.
If it is the latter, then many of such examples are extremely short length routes with primary purpose of comfort travel and tourist leisure at sub-optimal operations. What is the motivation to develop an optimization model for such small scale operations?
3. While the authors have added significant amount of literature as suggested in previous round of review, however the section is not coherent. Paragraphs jump from one discussion to another without maintaining consistent flow for the reader. Authors should rework on this section by possibly sub-sectioning literature review into different relevant discussions/sub-topics.
4. Certain abbreviations have not been established. For instance, what is CIM, CVM, MDA and CGE?
5. The presented results are for a very small example which do not substantiate the validity of the model developed in the manuscript.
Authors have added more content to the work and have improved upon general conclusions and discussion, yet my overall review is still the same. This work needs to be more structured and organized, use of language should be coherent, objectives must be appropriately motivated, presented and further clarified, prior work in the field is presented but is not well structured in the literature review, a robust case study for analysis to validate the model is still lacking.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 3
- The sentence framing is confusing in certain paragraphs throughout the work. Certain sentences could have been explained in much simpler terms by use of fewer but more direct vocabulary. Below is a non-exhaustive list of example sentences from the manuscript.
- Line 40-41. Instead of "promotes the satisfaction of the aesthetic needs", one can write "fulfills the aesthetic needs".
- Line 42-43. "Railway transport is one of those types that provides the branches of the world economy by freight..." can be, "Railway transport is fundamental to world economy as it moves passengers and tourists, as well as hauls freight and luggage."
- Line 51-52. "use of land by various types of transport" can simply be "transportation land use".
Such rephrasing of sentences as suggested above can improve the overall readability of the manuscript. At the moment, certain paragraphs are hard to follow. Please improve wherever possible the use of language.
Done.
- It is unclear what railway tourism is? Does railway tourism mean connecting major tourist hubs or is it the railway itself being a tourist attraction as is suggested with examples of narrow gauge in the background section.
If it is former, then it should be made clear with relevant examples in the background section.
If it is the latter, then many of such examples are extremely short length routes with primary purpose of comfort travel and tourist leisure at sub-optimal operations. What is the motivation to develop an optimization model for such small scale operations?
Railway tourism is a complex of socio-economic relations, combining a wide range of types of industrial and economic activities [15-17] that are related to the movement of tourists [18,19], providing them with the necessary service and full range of services during a trip (transport and infrastructure; Hotel and entertainment complex; food industries, etc.) [20,21].
- While the authors have added significant amount of literature as suggested in previous round of review, however the section is not coherent. Paragraphs jump from one discussion to another without maintaining consistent flow for the reader. Authors should rework on this section by possibly sub-sectioning literature review into different relevant discussions/sub-topics.
Done.
- Certain abbreviations have not been established. For instance, what is CIM, CVM, MDA and CGE?
Done or deleted.
- The presented results are for a very small example which do not substantiate the validity of the model developed in the manuscript.
Done.
Authors have added more content to the work and have improved upon general conclusions and discussion, yet my overall review is still the same. This work needs to be more structured and organized, use of language should be coherent, objectives must be appropriately motivated, presented and further clarified, prior work in the field is presented but is not well structured in the literature review, a robust case study for analysis to validate the model is still lacking.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have worked on the comments and suggestions from previous round of review, and the manuscript is significantly improved.
However, section 3. Brief Literature Review is not coherent enough, as was suggested in the previous round of review as well. Paragraphs jump from one discussion to another without maintaining consistent flow for the reader. Authors should rework on this section by possibly sub-sectioning literature review into different relevant discussions/sub-topics.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #3
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address his/her comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.
REVISION 3
- Brief Literature Review is not coherent enough, as was suggested in the previous round of review as well. Paragraphs jump from one discussion to another without maintaining consistent flow for the reader. Authors should rework on this section by possibly sub-sectioning literature review into different relevant discussions/sub-topics.
Done.
We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Alessandro Severino, Larysa Martseniuk, Salvatore Curto and Larysa Neduzha.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
