Next Article in Journal
Accelerating Cultural Dimensions at International Companies in the Evidence of Internationalisation
Next Article in Special Issue
Uncertainties Influencing Transportation System Performances
Previous Article in Journal
Dietary Orange Pulp and Organic Selenium Effects on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Fatty Acid Profile, and Oxidative Stability Parameters of Broiler Chickens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integrated Urban Mobility for Our Health and the Climate: Recommended Approaches from an Interdisciplinary Consortium
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Multimodal Transport Model to Evaluate Transport Policies in the North of France

Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1535; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031535
by Moez Kilani 1,*, Ngagne Diop 2 and Daniel De Wolf 2,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1535; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031535
Submission received: 3 December 2021 / Revised: 17 January 2022 / Accepted: 19 January 2022 / Published: 28 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Transport Planning under Conditions of Uncertainty)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for their excellent work in the field of Transportation. They have done an excellent write up with detailed discussion and motivations of this study. Therefore, I recommend this article for possible publication.

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors have described the passenger transport system in France and studied the impacts, on traffic flows and emissions, of two pricing reforms. However, some of my concerns regarding this paper are as follows:

  1. The abstract needs more clarity.
  2. The authors are advised to add an abbreviation table in Appendix.
  3. In figure 3 and Figure 4, the axis description is missing.  The quality of the figures must be improved. Some of the text of the figures are blurred and not visible.
  4. Research gap and motivation must be included at the end of the literature review section
  5. What is the significance of equation no 3. 
  6. The conclusion section should be concise and clear..

On the basis of the above points, I recommend it for major revision.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is like a report prepared as part of a project work. There is no reflection on the key contribution of the manuscript to literature, method development and understanding of the subject.

The manuscript also lacks in appropriately defining the model and the limitations.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript entitled “A multimodal transport model to evaluate transport policies in the North of France”.

The research is interesting and topical as it addresses the issue of the impacts of regulatory transportation policies by analyzing two specific scenarios: free public transport and road pricing.

Below are my revisions hoping that they will be helpful to you in improving and enhancing the paper.

1) Editing

Verify that all acronyms are made explicit in the text at least once.

Check that all formula parameters are explained in the text.

Make sure that in the graphs, the units of measure are always placed on the axes.

2) State of the art

It is not very clear to me how your model ranks in the technical and scientific literature. Perhaps a paragraph would help to understand how the proposed model relates to other similar models or other international level studies on the topic.

3) model application

My impression is that the application of the model is not very transparent. It goes from the theoretical description of the model to the results without reporting some intermediate steps. I would suggest making more explicit this passage to help to understand on one side the application and on the other side the validity of the proposed model.

Thank you and good luck.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions in a satisfactory manner. Thus, I support its' acceptance.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

The article does not contribute to the existing literature nor provide case why this work should be published. It is a case study. 

Author Response

We have added a discussion on the emissions of pollutant gases emissions. We have kept our methodology quiet general so that other researchers can replicate it for other cases.

We hope you find the revised version suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for considering my suggestions. I hope my recommendations have helped to improve your research.

I have seen that you have responded in a timely and comprehensive manner to the 3 requests for further study.

Therefore, I believe that the research is publishable without further modification.

Thank you and good luck.

Author Response

Thank you

Back to TopTop