The Analysis of the Conceptual Framework of Green Port Implementation in Indonesia Using Circular Economy: The Case Study of Benoa Public and Fishing Terminals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a framework to integrate the eco-system of fishing terminals and public terminals. The concept of circular economy and green port were applied. However, several revisions are required before the possible publication. My major concerns are summarized below.
(1) The manuscript should be better organized to present a more scientific form. I suggest that the author(s) should add a chapter of conclusions, and separate discussion from section 4.
(2) The authors should revise English throughout the manuscript. For example, I suggest literature review instead of studies.
(3) I would suggest a separate text for the background or the study areas. The problem in figure 1 was not clearly clarified. The background and the details should be introduced for readers from other regions. Some were in literature studies (such as 2.7). But it is better to provide a separate sector.
(4) Figure 3 is hard for readers. Please revised it as it seems easy to turn it to the correct direction.
(5) Please check and revise the style of references.
(6) Set where to the next line. See line 304 …
(7) Why the idea of this paper is important for other regions? Please discuss it.
(8) Clarify the contributions of the three-step framework to the existing problem when it was proposed in line 220 to 245.
Author Response
First we want to thank you for you review, we had made revision based on your review.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript should be better organized to present a more scientific form. I suggest that the author(s) should add a chapter of conclusions, and separate discussion from section 4.
Response 1: We've added linear programing implementation, separate discussion from section 4 and conclusion section
Point 2: The authors should revise English throughout the manuscript. For example, I suggest literature review instead of studies.
Response 2: We've did a proofreading for our manuscript
Point 3: I would suggest a separate text for the background or the study areas. The problem in figure 1 was not clearly clarified. The background and the details should be introduced for readers from other regions. Some were in literature studies (such as 2.7). But it is better to provide a separate sector.
Response 3: The problem in figure 1 already changed and more detailed, the background of the study also discussed in more detail.
Point 4: Figure 3 is hard for readers. Please revised it as it seems easy to turn it to the correct direction.
Response 4: We've revised the figure so reader can be more easy to understand
Point 5: Please check and revise the style of references
Response 5: We've checked our style of reference
Point 6: Set where to the next line. See line 304 …
Response 6: All "where" like in line 304 already set to the next line
Point 7: Why the idea of this paper is important for other regions? Please discuss it.
Response 7: These will help the implementation of circular economy in port where fishing terminal and general terminal located side-by-side
Point 8: Clarify the contributions of the three-step framework to the existing problem when it was proposed in line 220 to 245
Response 8: existing problem in figure 1 already revised so it is in line of the three-step framework to the existing problem.
Below here attached our revised document, thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper's theme and methodology are in line with the standards of the target journal. The topic is currently debated both from a policy and scientific point of view.
However, the structure of the paper can be improved to provide a clear contribution and improve its readability. Below I provide a set of indications that I hope can be useful.
- The title could be revised shortening it. Maybe it is not necessary to include "Through Operational and Traffic Approach".
- The abstract is not clear. It should state which is the aim of the paper, the methodology and briefly the key results identified. Many typos make it difficult to understand what the author meant.
- The introduction introduced many concepts that should be explained. What do you mean by the shift from Industry 4.0 and 5.0, it is better to include a sentence to provide some brief definitions of this shift. The same applies to the 17 SDG (the first time used they should also be written without the acronym). The introduction should also refer to the methodology used and to the overall structure of the paper.
- Tables and figures. Their sources should be specified even if it is the author's elaboration.
- The literature review includes many sub-paragraphs some of which are very short. I suggest integrating them and reinforcing the connections.
- Methodology. The first sentence of the methodology may be missing some parts. Figure 3 and what?
- Conclusions are missing. A paragraph should be included summarizing the aim of the paper, the key results and the policy and managerial implications of the study. Moreover, future research perspectives should be considered by recalling the limitations of the study.
- I suggest proofreading your manuscript. they are many typos that make it difficult to understand some sentences.
Author Response
First we want to thank you for you review, we had made revision based on your review.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The title could be revised shortening it. Maybe it is not necessary to include "Through Operational and Traffic Approach".
Response 1: We've shortening our title
Point 2: The abstract is not clear. It should state which is the aim of the paper, the methodology and briefly the key results identified. Many typos make it difficult to understand what the author meant.
Response 2: We've revised the abstract so it state the aim of the paper and the methodology.
Point 3: The introduction introduced many concepts that should be explained. What do you mean by the shift from Industry 4.0 and 5.0, it is better to include a sentence to provide some brief definitions of this shift. The same applies to the 17 SDG (the first time used they should also be written without the acronym). The introduction should also refer to the methodology used and to the overall structure of the paper.
Response 3: We've revised this and all acronym in the first time is written without the acronym
Point 4: Tables and figures. Their sources should be specified even if it is the author's elaboration
Response 4: We've added all table and figure reference
Point 5: The literature review includes many sub-paragraphs some of which are very short. I suggest integrating them and reinforcing the connections
Response 5: We've revised the literature review and integrating them with reinforcing the connections.
Point 6: Methodology. The first sentence of the methodology may be missing some parts. Figure 3 and what?
Response 6: It's just a typo and we've revised it
Point 7: Conclusions are missing. A paragraph should be included summarizing the aim of the paper, the key results and the policy and managerial implications of the study. Moreover, future research perspectives should be considered by recalling the limitations of the study
Response 7: We've added conclusion section in our paper
Point 8: I suggest proofreading your manuscript. they are many typos that make it difficult to understand some sentences.
Response 8: We've did a proofreading for our paper
Below here attached our revised document, thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your interesting paper, but I have some comments:
Please extend your abstract - why did you decide to choose this topic?
In my opinion, the figure is not suitable for the Introduction part. Please rewrite it.
In my opinion, is not necessary 2.1-2.7. The literature review has to be plain text.
In the methodology part, the Figure 3 has to be in the place where it is cited
Why did you cut your text into small parts? it is very difficult to read 3.2.2 - just 10 lines 2..,.4 - just 6 lines.
Where is the Discussion part? Conclusion? I think this paper is not finished yet.
Author Response
First we want to thank you for you review, we had made revision based on your review.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Please extend your abstract - why did you decide to choose this topic?
Response 1: We've revised and extend our abstract
Point 2: In my opinion, the figure is not suitable for the Introduction part. Please rewrite it.
Response 2: We've revised figure one so it is more suitable for the introduction part.
Point 3: In my opinion, is not necessary 2.1-2.7. The literature review has to be plain text.
Response 3: We've already shortening and integrating some part our literature review but each point still need to be explained pointly.
Point 4: In the methodology part, the Figure 3 has to be in the place where it is cited
Response 4: We've moved figure 3 to be in the place where it is cited.
Point 5: Why did you cut your text into small parts? it is very difficult to read 3.2.2 - just 10 lines 2..,.4 - just 6 lines.
Response 5: We divide our text into small part to emphasize the point
Point 6: Where is the Discussion part? Conclusion? I think this paper is not finished yet.
Response 6: We've added separate discussion and conclusion for our paper.
Below here attached our revised document, thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author(s) has (have) well responded to my comments.
I would suggest to seperate sector of background from literature.
It will be better to discuss some theoritical implications.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
thank your for your review
Point 1: I would suggest to separate sector of background from literature.
Response 1: We've added separate section for background between introduction and literature
Point 2: It will be better to discuss some theoritical implications.
Response 2: We've added our theoritical implication on discussion part (see line 435 - 446)
Below here attached our revised document, thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have addressed the suggestions provided in the review report. The paper has improved and matches the standards of the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you so much for your review. Below here attached our final document
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for corrections.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you so much for your review. Below here attached our final document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
