Evaluation Analysis and Recommendations for the Development of the Menda Railway Site Based on TOPSIS Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors evaluated the development decision of the 12 railway stations with Entropy and TOPSIS methods in this article.
General Comment:
The article is interesting as a subject but not interesting in terms of the methods used (Entropy and TOPSIS).
Weaknesses:
- The contribution of the article to the literature is not clear.
- The introduction part of the article is very messy. Nothing is understood.
- There is no number of Equations in the Methodology section. Notations are not defined.
- The results are not explained in detail.
- It is not clear why the authors preferred these two methods.
Suggestions:
- Authors are required to rewrite the introduction.
- Authors should state why they preferred these methods.
- The methodology section should be overhauled.
- The English of the article should be checked.
- One of the new methods (MARCOS/CoCoSo) should be added to the article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 10 Comments
Weaknesses:
Point 1:The contribution of the article to the literature is not clear.
Response 1: Thanks to the teacher's opinion, the relevant content of the article has been revised, and the article has added section 1.2 -The significance of research, which is on page 3-4 of the article. This study uses TOPSIS method, which shows that under the existing target direction, it can not only measure the importance of railway stations, but also make decisions on the development direction of each station, and visually display and analyze the characteristics of each station after visualizing the data, which can provide an idea for railway station development decision-making. At the same time, the above conclusions have certain innovative significance for the research on the importance decision and the choice of advantages and disadvantages of the station development. In addition to the above-mentioned focus on the abandoned railway station tourism development decision from the horizontal and vertical dimensions, it not only extends the results of TOPSIS model beyond the numerical value itself, but also gives development suggestions to each station according to the existing situation of each station. The significance of this research lies in that the evaluation system can give useful suggestions and guidance to the design and planning of the corresponding sites.
Point 2: The introduction part of the article is very messy. Nothing is understood.
Response 2: Thanks to the teacher's comments, the article has been revised. It may be due to cultural differences and policy reasons, and grammatical differences lead to unclear expression. At present, the introduction of the article has been rearranged. It is divided into 1.1 Overview of Menda Railway, 1.2 The significance of research, and 1.3 Related studies, which are on pages 2-7 of the article.
Point 3: There is no number of Equations in the Methodology section. Notations are not defined.
Response 3: Thank you very much for finding this error. We are sorry for this kind of problem and have corrected it according to your suggestion. In the article, Section 2.2, Methodology and Model for Evaluating the Development of the Heritage Site of the Menda Railway, pp. 11-14. In addition, we also polished and modified the manuscript.
Point 4: The results are not explained in detail.
Response 4: Thanks to the teacher's opinion, it may be due to cultural differences and policy reasons, and there are differences in grammatical expressions, resulting in unclear expressions. The original article has further analyzed and expanded the results since Section 3, and the results of the article have been partially revised at present.
Point 5: It is not clear why the authors preferred these two methods.
Response 5: Thanks to the teacher's opinion, the method selection part has been modified. According to the teacher's suggestion, the reasons for choosing two methods are explained in the article, in the second and third paragraphs of section 1.3, pp. 6-7. Here's a brief explanation. This research object is the railway that used to transport coal mines in the 20th century. Now, each railway station has been abandoned for many years. At present, we want to rebuild the tourism industry in this area with several abandoned railway stations, and we have set several development themes for this area in terms of policies. Therefore, this research wants to adopt more objective data and more objective analysis, choose the development direction of the station under the existing goals, and make decisions on the development degree of the station. Therefore, choosing TOPSIS model can not only choose the development direction of the site, but also make a decision on the importance of the site. Therefore, TOPSIS can comprehensively cover the selection from target to development.
Suggestions：
Suggestion 1: Authors are required to rewrite the introduction.
Response 1: Thanks to the teacher's comments, the article has been revised. It may be due to cultural differences and policy reasons, and grammatical differences lead to unclear expression. At present, the introduction of the article has been rearranged. It is divided into 1.1 Overview of Menda Railway, 1.2 The significance of research, and 1.3 Related studies, which are on pages 2-7 of the article.
Suggestion 2: Authors should state why they preferred these methods.
Response 2: Thanks to the teacher's comments ,your question is very good. We have modified the corresponding part of the manuscript, modified the original method introduction part, and added the method discussion part, which is in section 1.3-Related studies, page 4-7 of the article. Section 1.3 The first paragraph is the introduction of relevant research, and the second and third paragraphs are the introduction of the reasons and advantages of the appropriate methods used in this study. This part mainly explains the selection and comparison of methods, which makes the expression clearer and more accurate.
Suggestion 3: The methodology section should be overhauled.
Response 3: Thanks to the teacher's opinion, the method selection part has been modified, which is in section 1.3-Related studies, page 4-7 of the article. Here's a brief explanation for the choice of methods. The research object is the railway that used to transport coal mines in the 20th century. Now, each railway station has been abandoned for many years. At present, we want to rebuild the tourism industry in this area with several abandoned railway stations, and we have set several development themes for this area in terms of policies. Therefore, this research wants to adopt more objective data and more objective analysis, choose the development direction of the station under the existing goals, and make decisions on the development degree of the station. Therefore, choosing TOPSIS model can not only choose the development direction of the site, but also make a decision on the importance of the site. Therefore, TOPSIS can comprehensively cover the selection from target to development.
Suggestion 4: The English of the article should be checked.
Response 4: Thank you, teacher, for correcting me. The article has been revised according to your suggestions.
Suggestion 5: One of the new methods (MARCOS/CoCoSo) should be added to the article.
Response 5: Thank you for your advice. The above has explained the problem of the method to the teacher. I also think that adding a new method will make the problem more comprehensive. However, considering the space limitation and TOPSIS method, we have been able to better solve the problem of this article-"making a decision on the development direction and development degree of abandoned railway stations". We have carefully evaluated the time and experimental conditions needed to complete these supplementary work, and feel that we can't afford this expanded supplementary research at present. At the same time, we feel that the scope of the present paper can still support the argument of this paper. Therefore, we suggest that the supplementary experiment should be done in another follow-up paper in the future.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper prioritizes the development of 12 railway stations. The authors have presented models and strategies that do not have accurate scientific support! Although the paper is generally explicit, it lacks scientific innovation and creativity. So I suggest the authors send it to an international conference. However, it may be helpful to consider the following comments:
1- I suggest that some of the research findings be clearly mentioned in the Abstract.
2- Create a literature section specifically on the paper. This section describes the models, as well as the types of models and results. Besides, it can describes the individual contributions with a good summary and analysis of the literature. This section can also help authors determine why they choose the models and indicators presented in the article.
3- It is mentioned on page 4 that: “choice of indexes has a great influence on the evaluation results”. Did you consider this important in your research as well? Performing a sensitivity analysis on the results can be very effective.
4- It was not clear to me why the TOPSIS method was chosen. How did you prove that this method is “realistic and reliable”? Exactly the same questions are asked about “entropy weighting method”. The claim that the entropy weighting method is “stronger objectivity and higher accuracy” needs to be further elaborated.
5- In Figure 2, the word “transportation” is used instead of “traffic”. Are these two words the same?
6- Please explain why indicators such as environmental hazards, land use and land acquisition have not been seen? Indicators that are vital with regard to the railway route.
7- Given that freight and passenger trains pass on the intended rail route, I suggest that the evaluation indicators be divided according to the nature of freight and passenger. Freight and passenger aspects can have similar or completely different indicators.
8- It is necessary to number the formulas and make appropriate referencing.
9- In title of Section 3: “the model Menda” or “the Menda model”. However, nowhere in the paper, it is mentioned what the Manda model is!
10- I recommend using strategic planning techniques such as SWOT to provide strategies and suggestions. Such suggestions will have a more scientific aspect.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 10 Comments
Point 1: I suggest that some of the research findings be clearly mentioned in the Abstract.
Response 1: Thank you, teacher, for correcting me. The article has been revised according to your advice, and some grammar changes have been made in the abstract, which has increased the significance of research and literature contribution. It is on page 1. In the part of the abstract, the background and research findings are more clearly introduced.
Point 2: Create a literature section specifically on the paper. This section describes the models, as well as the types of models and results. Besides, it can describes the individual contributions with a good summary and analysis of the literature. This section can also help authors determine why they choose the models and indicators presented in the article.
Response 2:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the corresponding parts of the manuscript, rearranged the chapters, and revised the contents of sections 1.2 and 1.3. Section 1.2 is The significance of research, which mainly explains the significance of the research, and section 1.3 is Related studies, which introduces the relevant research and leads to the research model. This part mainly explains the choice and comparison of methods, and summarizes and analyzes the contributions of others, which makes the expression clearer and more accurate.
The reasons for choosing the model are revised again, in section 1.3, page 4-7 of the article. The selection background of the model is revised again, in section 1.2, page 3-4; The reference and basis for the selection of indicators are revised again, in Section 2.1.1, page 7-9.
Point 3: It is mentioned on page 4 that: “choice of indexes has a great influence on the evaluation results”. Did you consider this important in your research as well? Performing a sensitivity analysis on the results can be very effective.
Response 3: The teacher's suggestion may be due to cultural differences and policy reasons, and there are grammatical differences that lead to the unclear expression of the article. I am very sorry for this, and the grammar of this part has been revised at present. This part analyzes the shortcomings of other evaluation methods, so as to prove that TOPSIS method itself can complete the research in this respect.
At present, the comparison part of this method has been completely revised again, which is in section 1.3, page 4-7 of the article.
Point 4: It was not clear to me why the TOPSIS method was chosen. How did you prove that this method is “realistic and reliable”? Exactly the same questions are asked about “entropy weighting method”. The claim that the entropy weighting method is “stronger objectivity and higher accuracy” needs to be further elaborated.
Response 4: Thanks to the teacher's opinion, the method selection part has been modified. According to the teacher's suggestion, the reasons for choosing two methods have been modified and explained in the article. In section 1.3- Related studies, the article is on page 4-7. Here's a brief explanation. This study wants to adopt more objective data and more objective analysis, choose the development direction of the site under the existing goals, and make a decision on the development degree of the site. Therefore, TOPSIS model is selected, which can not only choose the development direction of the site, but also make a decision on the importance of the site. The indicators used to study TOPSIS model are all calculated by objective data, rather than artificially and subjectively scored. However, the entropy weight method itself does not have an artificial weighting for numerical values, but uses the weighting of numerical comparison factors. In this respect, the artificial subjective impression weighting is reduced, thus achieving stronger objectivity. The second half of section 1.3 and section 2.2.2 in the paper have been modified according to your suggestion to make the expression clearer and more accurate.
Point 5: In Figure 2, the word “transportation” is used instead of “traffic”. Are these two words the same?
Response 5: Thanks to the teacher for correcting me, this question is very good. Due to our negligence and the cultural differences in our region, we re-discussed and distinguished the meanings of these two words. Finally, we changed "transportation" to "traffic" according to your teacher's suggestion. In section 2.1.1 of the article, Figure 2, page 9.
Point 6: Please explain why indicators such as environmental hazards, land use and land acquisition have not been seen? Indicators that are vital with regard to the railway route.
Response 6: Thank you for your advice. It may be due to the unclear expression of grammar due to cultural differences, which leads to the unclear background and explanation of problems in the early stage. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding of reading. At present, this part of grammar has been revised. Here's a brief explanation. This research object is the railway that used to transport coal mines in the 20th century. Now, each railway station has been abandoned for many years. At present, we want to rebuild the tourism industry in this area with several abandoned railway stations, and we have set several development themes for this area in terms of policies. Therefore, this research is to choose the development direction of the station under the existing goals, so the selected indicators will be as close as possible to the development goals. The research is not to evaluate the quality, but to make a decision on whether it is suitable for a certain theme or function, so there are no indicators such as environmental hazards, land use and land expropriation.
This part has been rewritten, and section 1.2 -The significance of research, explains the significance of the research, 3-4 pages; Refer to Section 2.1.1-Selection of indicators for railroad site development, page 7-9, for the revision and explanation of the reference and basis of the model selection.
Point 7: Given that freight and passenger trains pass on the intended rail route, I suggest that the evaluation indicators be divided according to the nature of freight and passenger. Freight and passenger aspects can have similar or completely different indicators.
Response 7: Thank you for your advice. It may be due to the unclear grammatical expression of cultural differences, which leads to the unclear explanation of the previous background and questions. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding of reading. At present, the grammar of this part has been modified to emphasize the concept of "heritage" in the article. Here's a brief explanation. This research object is the railway that used to transport coal mines in the 20th century. Now, each railway station has been abandoned for many years. At present, we want to rebuild the tourism industry in this area with several abandoned railway stations, and we have set several development themes for this area in terms of policies. Therefore, this research is to choose the development direction of the stations under the existing goals.
At present, the stations and railways are in an abandoned state, and the government intends to develop tourism for them. Therefore, the functions of passenger transport and freight transport are not perfect at present, and it is possible that their functions will be added in the region in the near future. We also think that adding passenger transport and freight transport will make the problem more comprehensive, but considering the space limitation, we have carefully evaluated the time and experimental conditions needed to complete these supplementary work, and the current conditions can't support it. At the same time, we feel that the scope of the present paper can still support the argument of this paper. Therefore, we suggest that the supplementary experiment should be done in another follow-up paper in the future.
Point 8: It is necessary to number the formulas and make appropriate referencing.
Response 8: Thank you very much for finding this error. We are sorry for this kind of problem, which has been corrected according to your suggestion, in section 2.2-Methodology and model for evaluating the development of the heritage site of the Menda Railway, pages 11-14 of the article. In addition, we also polished and modified the manuscript.
Point 9:In title of Section 3: “the model Menda” or “the Menda model”. However, nowhere in the paper, it is mentioned what the Manda model is!
Response 9: Thank you, teacher, this part is a mistake of my grammar, which has been revised to “Analysis of the development of Menda railway station based on the model results”.
Point 10: I recommend using strategic planning techniques such as SWOT to provide strategies and suggestions. Such suggestions will have a more scientific aspect.
Response 10: Thank you for your advice. Your suggestion is very good. We originally considered using SWOT method to make decisions on research issues. He can better analyze the internal and external competitive environment and the situation under competitive conditions of each site, and analyze the internal strengths, weaknesses and external opportunities and threats.
However, considering that this research object is the railway that used to transport coal mines in the 20th century, now each railway station has been abandoned for many years. At present, we want to rebuild the tourism industry in this area with several abandoned railway stations, and we have set several development themes for this area in terms of policies. Therefore, this study wants to adopt more objective data, more objective analysis, choose the direction of site development under the existing goals, and need to make a decision on the degree of site development. Therefore, choosing TOPSIS model can not only choose the development direction of the site, but also make a decision on the importance of the site. At the same time, it is more objective and makes the expression clearer and more accurate. The advantages of this method are described in section 1.3.
At the same time, we have carefully evaluated the funds and experimental conditions needed to complete these revisions, and feel that we can't afford this expanded scope of supplementary research at present. At the same time, we feel that the scope of the present paper can still support the argument of this paper. Therefore, we suggest that the supplementary experiment should be done in another follow-up paper in the future.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is suitable for publication now.
