Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Urban Ecological Environment Quality Based on Improved RSEI and Driving Factors Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating the Outcomes of Monetary and Fiscal Policies in the EU in Times of Crisis: A PLS-SEM Approach
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Cold Ironing Implementation Overview in European Ports—Case Study—Croatian Ports

Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8472; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118472
by Roko Glavinović 1,*, Maja Krčum 1, Luka Vukić 1 and Ivan Karin 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8472; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118472
Submission received: 18 April 2023 / Revised: 19 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 23 May 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Recommendation and Comments for manuscript sustainability-2379460-peer-review-v1.pdf with the title: “Cold ironing implementation overview in European ports – 2 case study – Croatian ports”, authors:  Roko Glavinović, Maja Krčum, Luka Vukić, Ivan Karin.

Using totally 50 references, authors identify the prospects for cold ironing technology introduction into Croatian ports considering new EU regulations.

The text is clearly written and the graphical interpretation of the results clearly provides insight into the results obtained. The structure, content, and concept of the research work, as well as the achievements, correspond to the original scientific article. The English is fine and the paper is clearly written.

The main comments that I find useful for improving the quality of the article are presented below:

 Finding 1: Line 217, it is missing a literature reference.

Finding 2: Paragraph 4: Method. Author should explain scientific methods in details which are used in the manuscript. It is necessary to explain two stages in details and specific questioner.

Finding 3: In Results are missing more statistical data. Authors should in detail explain proposed framework for the implementation of cold ironing technology in the state-owned ports of the Republic of Croatia.

Finding 4:  Paragraph 6: Discussion and conclusion. I suggest to split this paragraph in two. In Discussion, it is important to explain scientific achievements in this manuscript and explain possible different framework for implementation new technology in Croatia. In Conclusion, authors should explain and specify main scientific achievements and explain possible future research in this field.

 

Due to above states, I require major revision before publishing this manuscript.

  

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Kindly find attached response to Your comments.

Best regards, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The scientific article is well-founded and coherently explains the research carried out. However, the article/paper could provide more details of the research carried out in the field, with port actors in Croatia. The number of people who answered the questionnaire is not addressed, nor is it reported whether they are open questions or not, when the field research was carried out, how, etc. It would be interesting to describe how the study was carried out in ports in Croatia.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Kindly find attached response to Your comments.

Best regards, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study identify the prospects for cold ironing technology introduction into Croatian state-owned ports according to European sustainable conditions.

The research approach and contents are interesting. Some suggestions to improve the quality of work are as follows:

- make the abstract more meaningful, even with quantitative content

- increase the scientific literature, emphasizing more the benefits introduced by cold ironing. Citing this article could also be useful Marinello et al., 2021 - Sustainability of logistics infrastructures: operational and technological alternatives to reduce the impact on air quality

- Provide a brief description of the chosen ports (Rijeka, Zadar, Šibenik, Split, Ploče, and Dubrovnik), insert a map of the sites

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Kindly find attached response to Your comments.

Best regards, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Significant improvements have been made in version 2 and do not have any recommendation. Congratulation for prepared research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your valuable guidance.

Best regards, 

Authors 

Back to TopTop