Optimization of Multi-Port Empty Container Repositioning under Uncertain Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigates the multi-period empty container reposition problem with the uncertainty of the input and output of empty containers in ports. I have read the manuscript in detail. This is very an elementary manuscript. I could not find any strong result or interesting application in this article. The following are the detail comments.
1. The bigger problem with this paper is that the solid contributions are not clear.
2. The main point of the literature review is to sort out and integrate all the literature in your own language. The detailed statements of your literature review part it is too scattered. It only introduces what each study has done separately, without summarizing the main conclusions of existing literatures. Thus, it is difficult to point out the research gaps, indicating that it is meaningful to choose these literatures to review. The literature review section needs to be overhauled
3. For the numerical experiment, some examples should be shown to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.
4. The reference is out of data. I worry about the audiences of this paper. Please consider the state-of-the-art. Moreover, the reference formats are not consistent.
In view of these comments, the original innovation of the submission is not enough to accept for publish on this journal. So, reject is suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Empty container reposition is a hot topic in shipping filed both for the academic researchers and industry managers. This manuscript has tackled a multi-period empty container reposition problem by building two models respectively responding to The cases of with or without considering the empty containers reposition. And the total costs of empty container, storage costs, lease costs, and optimal storages of empty containers in ports in the two cases have been compared by doing a case study. The manuscript has some contributions to the academy and a certain innovativeness in the port and shipping filed, but some issues should be improved before it could enter publication.
1. In the Title: “uncertain environment” is not well defined. From the phrase of “uncertainty of the input and output of empty containers in ports”, it may be uncertain demands of ports. Please make sure and clarify this concept in the manuscript.
2. In the Abstract, the phrase of “established a total cost” has been used twice, but it is a very bad writing. “establish” should be followed by “model” or “equation”, but not “cost”.
3. Also in the Abstract, the sentence of “The objective of this article is to solve the multi-period empty container reposition problem by storage theory.” i not good. And the sentence of “the input and output of empty containers in the port are random variables.” could not be understood. Is it “the empty containers need to be brought into a port and that need to be sent out of a port”.
4. Anyway, the abstract lacks clear motivation of the research and the influence of the findings, which needs further clarification.
5. In the researching hypothesis, it should be set that every container is a standard container, to be more precise.
6. In Fig. 2, there should be a “Y” along with the arrow from leasing company to Port i, indicating that only when the leasing company does have empty containers can it lend them to Port i.
7. In 3.1 Variables, the description of the variables had better be listed in a table form, thus easier to read.
8. In Computational experiments, there should be units marked along with TC etc.
9. For the whole manuscript, some bade English writings could be found. For example, the sentence “The x-th priority port of port i of empty container origin” could not be understood well. Thus, it is good for author to check the English carefully. I don no mean sending out for English editing, but based on authors’ mother tongue, to clear all of the English writings to make sure the English can correctly reflect the authors’ meanings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. This paper aimed to model optimization of empty container reposition under a multi-port uncertainty.
2. The authors should highlight the gap and significance of the study before they write the objective of the study. The novelty and superiority of this investigation should be stated clearly at the end of the literature surveys.
3. All equations should be described clearly, it suggests adding a nomenclature section.
4. Add the case study to validate the model.
5. Please use data from the container port to solve the repositioning problem.
6. Expand the result discussion on the impact of cost analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the paper according to the comments. The paper is now clear and well structured, so I recommend accepting this paper after improving the following aspects.
(1) Writing: There are still some typos, mistakes, and grammar issues throughout the entire paper.
(2) Some related recent three years papers should be added into the reference section, such as https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00498-y; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084697; https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2022.2032426; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07066-z.
(3) Improve the quality of figures and tables.
(4) Check the reference section from the author, title, journal name, to the volume, pages or doi.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author's response is not satisfying. Please make the author's response in a scientific manner, point by point, and include a clear opinion and defenses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Some of the previous comments have been revised by the author.
1. All figures should be increased, it suggests using graphical data analysis for publication quality.
2. Add abbreviation and nomenclature section beside the variables in section 2.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your precious comments on the improvement of this paper. Through these three rounds of revisions, all the authors clearly feel that the logical structure, graphical description and case analysis of this paper have improved a lot!
- All figures should be increased, it suggests using graphical data analysis for publication quality.
Reply: We have re-drawn all the figures, particularly making Fig 1-5 more distinct and of high quality for publication. Besides, we have supplemented Fig 6-11 with graphical data that could render convenience for the understanding of readers.
- Add abbreviation and nomenclature section beside the variables in section 2.
Reply: Beside Section 2, we added Section 3: Model hypotheses and variable description, in which there are detailed descriptions of all the abbreviations and nomenclatures that appear in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
