Ship Carbon Intensity Indicator Assessment via Just-in-Time Arrival Algorithm Based on Real-Time Data: Case Study of Pusan New International Port
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article performed a case study at Pusan new international port for Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) of ships under just in time arrival (JITA) condition. The real ship investigation in terms of the digital twin of Pusan new international port shows that the CII improved over the ones without JITA. Organization and writing the article is fine and worth to be published to the community. Overall, the article is acceptable except some minor mistakes.
Below are some places which can be revised to improve the quality of the article.
1. In the article, ‘manuscript’ may be changed to ‘paper’ or ‘study’.
2. In line 47, ‘speed re’ is suggested to be confirmed.
3. In line 58, ‘[6] and reviews’ be ‘[6] review’.
4. In line 116, ‘carbon intensity index’ might be ‘carbon intensity indicator’.
5. In line 139, ‘[14] and [25-31]’ be ‘[14][25-31]’.
6. In line 173, ‘RTA’ might be ‘ATA’.
7. In lines 199 to 200, the last sentence ‘Figure 5 shows …… the vessel’ can be deleted.
8. In Table 3, ‘Busan’ might be ‘Pusan’.
9. In line 239, ‘can coverts’ be ‘can be converted’.
10. In line 242, ‘Figure 6’ is a second one, and it should be ‘Figure 7’. Hereafter, all figure numbers and their citations should be modified accordingly.
11. In line 243, ‘is explained’ be removed.
12. In line 277, ‘RTA’ might be ‘ATA’, just like item 6.
13. In line 307, ‘is desined as’ should be revised.
14. In line 345, ‘The eduction’ be ‘The reduction’.
15. In line 365, ‘arrival opertatio-based’ be ‘arrival operation-based’.
16. In line 375, ‘Figure 12’ should be ‘Figure 14’. Hereafter revision should be made accordingly.
17. In line 379, ‘JITA oeration’ be ‘JITA operation’.
18. In line 389, ‘JITA opration is applie’ be ‘JITA operation is applied’.
19. In line 391, ‘its effect clearly’ is not a sentence.
20. In line 428, ‘Table 2’ be ‘Table 11’.
21. In line 428, ‘carbon intensity index’ might be ‘carbon intensity indicator’.
22. In line 429, ‘carbon intensity index’ might be ‘carbon intensity indicator’.
23. In page 18, just below Figure 19, ‘The CII of Vessel’ be ‘The CII of the vessel’.
24. In line 457, ‘to predict predicting’ be revised.
25. In line 462, ‘without operation’ be ‘without JITA operation’.
26. In lines 490 and 491, ‘Most of case’ be ‘Most of the cases’.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments: Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, Ship Carbon Intensity Indicator assessment by Just in Time Arrival Algorithm based on real-time data: Case Study – Pusan New International Port is studied. This study used actual vessel arrival and departure data from the Pusan International Container Terminal to examine how the carbon intensity indicator of the vessel changes when the just-in-time arrival policy is used. The proposed methods are correct. However, there are some issues that should be noted and must be corrected. :
1. The abstract is very brief. The abstract section is missing the flow connection. Include the current issues, the correct approach, the findings, and the significant outcomes. Additionally, include some numerical data in the abstract section.
2. In keywords, there are two words CII and EEXI. What does this mean? Explain these words first then write the acronyms.
3. In the introduction section reference number 1 has more than two authors and the authors have written only the first author without “et al.” The same mistake is repeated at several spots in the introduction section. Please correct it.
4. The introduction section lacks a good structure. Also, the introduction section doesn't properly define and explain the research gap.
5. Figure 1. Research Schematic Diagram, the text is not uniform throughout this figure. Correct it.
6. 2.2. Material – Data, here I see the structure of the paper, it would be interesting to write the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction section rather to write it here.
7. Figure 2 is blurred. Insert neat and clean figure.
8. In the current manuscript, the authors referred to various research works in sequence in the section Materials and Methods. What the authors have done in the current research work rather than taking other models. The authors should explain their work in a technical way and write to cite other research work.
9. 2.3. Methodology section, this section should also deal according to question 6 above.
10. JIT production can be extremely sensitive to errors of any kind. Since only the barest minimal inventory levels are kept, there is little opportunity for error of any type. Since inventory levels are kept at considerably lower levels, JIT production won't be able to respond well to a sudden spike in the volume of demand from the market. Please explain?
11. Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are blurred. Please redraw neat and clean figures
12. Also figures 19, 20, 21 23, and 24 need to be redrawn again.
13. There are some typos and formatting issues in various sections. The authors are advised to check the manuscript thoroughly for such corrections.
14. The drafting style of the paper is not good and not properly organized. Please go through each paragraph and correct it.
15. The English language utilized is extensive in terms of vocabulary but is hardly understandable. The entire work needs to be carefully elaborated, maybe again, by a qualified English language expert.
16. Section 4. Discussion part. Is the discussion or conclusion part? Please elaborate.
17. Finally, the style of references is not according to the journal style. Please correct all the references according to the journal style.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Minor revision will be needed for further processing
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper is based on the shipping industry and demonstrates the effect of carbon intensity correlates with ship size and waiting time. Below are my comments for improving the manuscript.
1) One comparison table can be added for improving the novelty of work.
2) Future direction can be added in the conclusion section.
3) More update references must be added and also with these references the introduction section must be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have provided the comments and I have no further comments.
