Improving Climate Resilience of Critical Assets: The ICARIA Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

 

Dear authors, there is some similarity that needs to be addressed, both from another paper as European sources

 

There will be no proper review without that.

 

Very general comments:

 

Introduction: similarity all over

 

All figures need to be original, or modified and then clearly state so… and what…

 

Captions need to be enlightening in terms of region/specific information/ time frame…

 

Do not mix reference styles… “(source: Zuccaro et al., 2018 [12]).”

 

Similarity in 2.4 too

Where is the originality here…?

 

Why should we have similarity in results section?!

And no reference in some cases…

The same source…

“3. Expected results”

 

And then results again?!

“4. Expected project results”

Please do not “list”

 

Entire similarity:

” Table 2. Summary of the mid-term pathway Expected Outcomes.”

Or “Table 3. Summary of the long-term pathway Impact Outcomes.”

Not possible and NO references…

 

Conclusions needs to have brief contextualization and similarity

Main findings e practical implications

Limitations and future prospects

 

I believe the manuscript “sells” the idea of a project, that needs to be translated into an original scientific manuscript (no communication should be that extensive), honestly, needing extensive work to be made relevant

Moderate

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates an interesting topic, such as the ICARIA project that aims at improving Climate Resilience of Critical Assets. The paper is well written and the methodology is pertinent. I suggest major revisions, such as:

Introduction:

The novelty of the paper needs to be demonstrated in order to support the originality of the paper.

Please discuss that the concept of resilience needs to consider the indirect losses. Please refer to:

1.           Brookshire DS, Chang SE, Cochrane H, Olson RA, Rose A, Steenson J (1997) Direct and indirect economic losses from  earthquake damage. Earthq Spectra 14(4):683–701. 

  2.            Adey B, Hajdin R, Brudwile E (2004) Effect of common cause failures on indirect costs. J Bridge Eng 9(2):200–208.

 

3.            Forcellini, D. (2019) A new methodology to assess indirect losses in bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut., 4, 10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0195-7   

Section 2

This sentence needs to be expanded:

"In order to optimise the project resources and to ensure and maximise the replicability of the scientific and technological outputs implementation, a two step approach will be followed to develop the multi-risk assessment of climate hazards in the case study regions.", with the due references.

Figure 3 and 6 are not very clear, please improve.

Conclusion

this conclusion is more similar to a discussion. Please add a new secton "discussion" a new conclusion, or reformulate the section more pertinently with a conclusion

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The theme of your research project is relevant and opportune with a methodology that is expected to be validated and applications on the case studies to be applied.

However, its summary in a scientific article appears to be somewhat premature, given that there is still no validation of the methodology, as well as the absence of results that are mentioned as expectations. Also the conclusions are somewhat unspecific.

I even believe that the text should be presented in a conference with an indexed publication in this initial phase of the project and resume publication in a journal later.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

 

Dear authors, I see no reality in the manuscript, as indicated in the responses. In any case, the manuscript continues to present some significant similarity and in those cases, the sources are not there.

I must say that I do not understand. where is the novelty of this project? I also do not understand why is the future being used in the discussion and conclusions.

“Another novel point of the project will be the analysis of multi-hazards”

 

I believe that the problem continues.

“I believe the manuscript “sells” the idea of a project that needs to be translated into an original scientific manuscript (no communication should be that extensive), honestly, needing extensive work to be made relevant.”

 

I would like the authorize to understand this Any similarity software now allows to see exactly the source used to write to text, if the sentence is written, just like the original source, or even. parts of it, the similarity software detects it. And even if the paper is published, it will compromise the author’s, the reviewer, the editors and the journal itself.

 

So, while I do acknowledge that the manuscript has been improved, it needs further work, to address every similarity...

As to focus on the exact Contextualization methodology main findings practical implications novelty innovation limitations and future prospects in both the abstract and the conclusions section.

 

Once again, the use of the future tends is not clear to me.

minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors still did not discuss in details to the typologies of indirect losses. Please discuss ALL the requested literature. The new part does not enter in sufficient details. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for improving your initial text. I think it is clearer and allows us to understand the object of future research. The non-existence of results but only expectations makes the text more suitable for a scientific congress than for a scientific journal. Therefore, I consider that it does not suit the level of quality that Sustainability must guarantee in view of the impact factor score that it has.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Dear authors, I specifically asked for a clean version with all changes indicated because otherwise it is impossible to properly review the manuscript.

The similarity remains present. Indicating the references is not enough. Offers need to adapt / rewrite content according to their own thoughts.

 

See that authors use the future and then the past...

Unclear...

“will be developed.”

“Importantly, this project has been conceived”

 

The aim of a communication is to present relevant results, relevant findings, outstanding information...

 

A significant amount of information comes from here. No changes.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/10877

 

Just as an example, so that authors understand the source being cited here is not the source used.

“Finally, according to Forcellini [24], since indirect losses affect the communities that are served by the infrastructure, it is essential to take into account the source of the damage and, in case of natural events, it is realistic to consider the possibility that more than single infrastructures can be affected by the loss of functionality.”

 

Because the manuscript has track changes all over this becomes unclear. But if there is more than one figure, grouped figures, subcaptions need to risk to correspond to each figure after the main caption.

“Figure 56. ICARIA testing and validation methodology.”

 

Is this a paper or a communication then?

“as a position paper”

 

This needs to be revised. You may call it even outcomes, not results.

“One of the first results will be the achievement of climate”

 

I hope authors are able to understand the scope of the above comments, as from previous ones.

 

Extensive similarity is still present

Minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is ready for acceptance

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for resubmitting your text.

The subject is of interest to the scientific community, however the initial state of the project and the absence of any finding or even a solid methodology leads me to suggest that they opt for the presentation and publication in a scientific conference in this initial stage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf