Finding a New Home: Rerouting of Ferry Ships from Merak–Bakauheni to East Indonesian Trajectories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Glad to review the manuscript (sustainability-2023368). This study focuses on the determined relocation of ships to new routes based on some factors from different stakeholder considerations. The study is interesting with good work effects. However, the logical layout of this paper is confusing and some statements should be improved. The comments in detail are below to help improve further.

(1) Abstract is not clear, what method you use and what effects that you make did not mention here?

(2) The description of the background in the Introduction is too much, while the part about the method is a little and it is better to use some associated words to list existing factors clearly.

(3) It’s hard to understand Fig. 3 because of some legends or labels I am confused about. Recommend you write a note below Fig to express them explicitly.

(4) Some formats need to be improved. For example, the title of Fig.4 is not centered, L151 lacks punctuation and some words use the wrong parts of speech. Also, some figures are not very clear.

(5) What are the empirical equations that you mention in L168, it is not clear.

(6) What is the meaning of the motivation of this article? Though data collecting is very meaningful, it seems like just analyzing data collected by questionnaire. Does it use any method? Alternatively, does every adjustment need to be investigated? 

(7) Authors should have been explained the sensitivity option: each cargo type to the ship's income in scenario demand 30% and 60%. How did authors determine 30% and 60% impacts? How about larger than 60%? For the demand level, in my view, it could be practical and significant.

(8) In my perspective of seeking for academic contributions, the study is more like a report rather than a scientific paper. I highly appreciate the fundamental investigation on the finding-out/determining new crossing trajectories but the results are obvious. The gap between the investigation and results should have been modeled or quantitatively derived. One or more option schemes should be compared basically.

(9) I am curious about the policy “the limitation of ship size” in 2014. Now, why did the authors start to find out a suitable ship size so as to serve new crossing trajectories? My concern is out of style for the current study. Otherwise, the authors should have explained the necessity of the proposed research. After all, it has passed 8 years. One or two years could be accepted for my doubt.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have made improvements according to the suggestions, starting from improving the abstract, including several suggested references, improving graphs and tables, and improving conclusions by adding research deficiencies and potential for further research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the authors’ revised manuscript (sustainability-2023368). The authors addressed a majority of comments and the report was improved. However, there are still issues confusing me. Comments are below to help reconsider further.

(1)  Is it the version you edited finally? None of the marked Line numbers correspond, which makes it hard to review. I have no idea the way of remarking on the lines. Perhaps after submission. Whatever, it suggests that the authors did not check the final edition prudently before confirming.

(2)  Problems (1)-(4) proposed still have not been resolved, as I cannot figure out where is improved and authors seem to skip question (3) of the 1-round comment.

 

(3)  In particular my big concern is what the innovativeness or meaning of this study except data collection and analysis are. I did not find out the contributions. I advise the authors should state the academic merits so that the reviewers have the capability of assessing the academic level. I mean this part should be added. 

Author Response

Thank you for the input, we have made improvements to what you asked for, including:
1. Improved grammar
2. For question no. 3 (in round 1) we have fixed it especially in figure 3, and we have added a brief explanation.
3. the addition of innovation from research (P.2) red writing

Thank you for your attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the response.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the authors’ revision (ID: sustainability-2023368) in the 3rd round. I am satisfied with the revision and responses. Please allow me to recommend an acceptable decision.

Author Response

thank you for your response to accept our paper.