Can Public Procurement Requirements for Railway Transport Promote Economic and Social Sustainability in South Africa?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

 

This paper presents transportation for efficiency of the economic and social sustainability in South Africa using literature analysis.

 

It is very important information for sustainability management in South Africa to consider the environmental policy including green transportation.

 

However, there are some points which are needed to confirm and correct before publication.

 

Those are:

 

• In “Methodology” section, I think the 4^th paragraph is the main part. Therefore, I suggest this paragraph is changed first paragraph in this section.

In addition, I think the 3^rd paragraph is moved “Introduction”.

 

• Table 1, the sentences of “Numeric target” are written at the center as itemization. In this case, I think they had better be written left alignment.

 

• In “Concluding remarks” section should describe the solutions with some quantity data from document analysis. For example, how much the investment value needs for green transport system, infrastructure, and so on? where is the efficient please in South Africa to construct the new railway transport?

It is very significant to discuss the countermeasure with quantity information, even if they are prediction value. I would like to know the concretely conclusions from this manuscript.

 

I would like to confirm above the review and revise the manuscript.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Good morning

Thank you so much for your inputs - highly appreciated.

 

Please find our comments as per attachment

Keep well

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW

I find the topic of the reviewed paper, entitled “Can public procurement requirements for railway transport promote economic and social sustainability in South Africa?”, crucial and compelling, particularly from the developing country perspective (in this case South Africa). However, the authors should significantly develop the quality of the paper.

Below there is a list of my remarks (substance and technical) on the reviewed paper:

1. The abstract of the paper does not include any results.
2. The paper's main aim, visible in the abstract, does not perfectly correspond to the aim presented in the introduction section.
3. The first sentence in the Introduction section contains only a quotation “…a process whereby organisations (or national governments) meet their needs for goods, services, works and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life basis (…) whilst minimising damage to the environment” but the authors present the list of 10 references. It looks strange.
4. The reference no. “24” is overused in the text of the paper.
5. The paper's aim is attractive, but the authors do not use any ambitious research methods (only desk research). The paper’s methodology should be developed.
6. The paper does not provide any research hypothesis/es or research questions. Please, formulate it/them and present it in the text.
7. There is a lack of visible paper’s scientific contribution. Please write literally (e.g., at the end of the introduction section).
8. As the paper is somewhat theoretical, it needs a deeper scientific literature review. (I find almost no references from scientific journals). It is a significant disadvantage of the revised manuscript. Please, use the literature review based on other developing countries (not only South Africa).
9. The discussion section, which compares the research results with other/former studies, is missing.
10. Please develop a recommendation section as it is crucial in your study.
11. Please, provide the limitations of the study.

 

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

I find the reviewed paper valuable, and the topic of the paper is crucial and up to date. However, the authors should deeply develop it to improve its quality. 

Author Response

Good morning

Thank you so much for your inputs and comments.

Highly appreciated - see attachment.

Kind regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

 

I could confirm that the manuscript has been properly revised.

 

I hope we can discuss the specific environmental and economic policy with quantitative results in the future.

 

Best regares,

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors included most of the comments in the text. I accept the text of the manuscript as it stands.