Analysis of the Competitiveness of the Performance of Baltic Ports in the Context of Economic Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The discussed topic is very interesting, but unfortunately the article is not suitable for publication in this form. It must be edited. Below are some minor and more important comments.
Please check your email addresses. I think this is where a bug crept in.
Problems with the numbering of references to the literature. Since the article begins with an introduction, here the numbering of the literature should start from item 1, not from 48. In this publication, literature is not arranged alphabetically, but in the order of citation. Please correct it.
The purpose of the study should be included in the introduction. Please complete it. The purpose is in the executive summary.
The structure of the article is inappropriate. After the introduction, there should be a literature review of similar research conducted around the world. There is no such review, but it is necessary. There is also a lack of research methodology that is scattered throughout the article. It should be collected in one place and should include all methods used in the work. There are also no sources for the data. Subsequently, each tested port should be presented and only then the results of the obtained tests. It should look like this:
1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Research methodology
4. Port characteristics (even a few sentences)
5. Test results that may or may not be broken down into individual ports
6. Conclusions
Good illustrative material should definitely be a plus.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and detailed review.
We have improved our research.
We hope we have met your expectations.
Have a great day
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 100: twice the word "where"
94-96 and 102-104: repeat in T description
93: extra points in the HV L index.
106: incorrect description of the formula, - the Tsr variable is missing in the formula on line 91
It is necessary to subtract and correct all inaccuracies in the description of the formulas (lines 91, 127)
Table 1 contains obsolete data that requires updating
The reliability of the forecast values ​​for the period up to 2048 is in doubt (Figure 1). A convincing mathematical justification of the obtained forecast data is required. It is not entirely clear what period of prehistory the authors relied on.
Figure 3 contains unreadable OX axis labels. There is no meaningful interpretation of values ​​along the axes
All shapes are missing axis labels (units)
There is no value of the calculated statistical criteria to substantiate the obtained forecast data (Figures 1, 6)
The reference needs updating. most of the articles (37 out of 54) are articles older than 5 years.
The list of references needs to be completed according to the requirements of the journal
For those articles that are indexed in scientometric databases, it is recommended to indicate the doi index
You need to add a Data and Metodology section.
According to the results presented in the annotation, the scientific novelty of the work is questionable.
It is recommended to add exploration perspectives in annotations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and detailed review.
We have improved our research.
We hope we have met your expectations.
Have a great day
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Firstly it is appreciated that a lot of effort and energy has gone into writing this paper. The statistical research is extensive. However, I would suggest that the paper should be improved and aligned according with title of the paper prior to publication. Sustainability has a strong association with the environment and the methods used and adopted to create and maintain a long lasting and competitive economy. This is core to the agenda for the EU and one which this paper recognises as being a core strategy for the EU since 2020. Whilst the paper is informative about the Balitic region it provides little information about the environmental balance with the other components. The paper addresses and focuses on economic viability and potential success of certain ports in commercial operations over sustainability.
The systematization, grouping, summarization of the scientific literature, data collection, comparison, financial analysis, and capacity calculation which the authors reference in the abstract should ideally be supported by a scientific or academic approach whilst citing the relevant method. It would benefit from a literature review and a better discussion and conclusion. Maybe the below articles should be considered and addressed?:
Staszkiewicz, P. Search for Measure of the Value of Baltic Sustainability Development: A Meta-Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1123664
Kropinova, E. Transnational and Cross-Border Cooperation for Sustainable Tourism Development in the Baltic Sea Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2111. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042111
Lu, J.; Ren, L.; Yao, S.; Qiao, J.; Strielkowski, W.; Streimikis, J. Comparative Review of Corporate Social Responsibility of Energy Utilities and Sustainable Energy Development Trends in the Baltic States. Energies 2019, 12, 3417. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183417
In addition there it is necessary to do some minor revision.
Introduction: Line 27-30 …In this article, we discuss in detail the most important … and on the end of the sentence is a reference. Line 40 … this appears to be missing.
Line 49-52 information could be more clear if there is written correct numbers of volume in 2011, and years before.
In expression 1 I would imagine that water density is missing and should be included in the calculation and presented as a factor. One could also assume that the Port approach and the channel depth (squat) is also important in arriving at a calculation. Dumping cargo on the berth can result in reduced water depth so new water depth soundings is also very important.
Hope this review and the articles I have suggested will be of help
Looking forward yo hearing from you again.
Best regards,
Reviewer.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and detailed review.
We have improved our research.
We hope we have met your expectations.
Have a great day
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, after the amendments made, the article can be published.
Please just correct the numbering in the reference list.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your precious time.
We tried to correct our manuscript.
Hopefully, we did it well.
Have a good day
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, think about the title, as it has become long and not entirely clear. If possible, improve.
Fig. 3 - add units of measurement to the right scale.
Fig. 4 - add units of measurement, specify the period (not the last three years).
Link 3 in the reference - indicate the email address.
There is still an insufficient number of links to sources, less than five years. Suggesting the following:
Babenko, V., Perevozova, I., Kravchenko, M., Krutko, M., and Babenko, D. (2020). Modern processes of regional economic integration of Ukraine in the context of sustainable development. E3S Web Conf., 166 (2020) 12001. https: //doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016612001
Perevozova I., Babenko V., Kondur O., Krykhovetska Z. and Daliak N. (2019). Financial support for the competitiveness of employees in the mining industry. SHS Web of Conferences, 65, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196501001
Line 655, 658 and others - a link to an electronic resource is required.
According to the list of references, it is necessary to re-number the sources.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your precious time.
We tried to correct our manuscript.
Hopefully, we did it well.
Have a good day
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
many thanks for sending the revised version of your paper. The objectives are now much clearer as you have noted this is concerning economic sustainability for ports in the region.
I would still ask however that you note in the text prior to the formula you share in section 3 be further amended to include a recognition of possible both water density and water depth due to cargo dumping. I am sure you agree these are contributing factors. I would like to see your comment about those factors.
All The best for your future research.
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your precious time.
We tried to correct our manuscript.
Hopefully, we did it well.
Have a good day
