Timetable Rescheduling Using Skip-Stop Strategy for Sustainable Urban Rail Transit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper needs major revision.

1.Reviewers have difficulty understanding why the authors divided the approach into three sub-algorithms. Besides the genetic algorithm, the other two algorithms seem to only provide problem information and calculate the objective function.

2.There is a lack of necessary parameter calibration.

3.Why did the authors choose GA instead of other advanced metaheuristic algorithms like ABC or WOA? It would be beneficial to compare the results obtained with other state-of-the-art algorithms.

4.The author only used the traditional version of GA, which does not make the paper's main contribution stand out.

5.The literature review did not comprehensively summarize the current research.

6.Please carefully proofread and edit the entire manuscript.

7.It is recommended that the authors refer to the following relevant papers to improve their paper:

1.Efficient Multi-objective Metaheuristic Algorithm for Sustainable Harvest Planning Problem," Computers & Operations Research, 106304.

2. A survey of multi-criteria decision-making techniques for green logistics and low-carbon transportation systems," Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(20), 57279-57301

 

3.An Adaptive Polyploid Memetic Algorithm for scheduling trucks at a cross-docking terminal. Information Sciences 2021, 565, pp.390-421.
4. Exact and metaheuristic algorithms for the vehicle routing problem with a factory-in-a-box in multi-objective settings. Advanced Engineering Informatics 2022, 52, p.101623.
5. A Diffused Memetic Optimizer for reactive berth allocation and scheduling at marine container terminals in response to disruptions. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 2023, 80, p.101334.

 

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our paper. We made careful changes based on your comments and suggestions to improve its quality. Please see the Attach.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully reviewed this paper carefully. Overall, the paper addresses a pertinent research topic and presents a novel approach. However, several major and minor comments should be addressed before considering this paper for publication.

 

1. **Introduction Structure**: The introduction should be consolidated into a single section without subsections. It is imperative to clearly elucidate the primary motivations and benefits of the research. Explain the rationale behind considering two conflicting objectives and whether this approach is novel or builds upon previous work. Following this, discuss the challenges and contributions, and provide an overview of the paper structure. The subsections "1.2" and "1.3" are unnecessary.

 

2. **Literature Review**: The literature review should be presented as a distinct section, not within "Section 1.1." Additionally, the literature review should be more comprehensive, incorporating recent works from prominent scholars in the field, such as Prof. Fathllahi-Fard, Prof. Crainic, Prof. Duelebenets, among others.

 

3. **Table 1 Format**: Revise the format of Table 1 by using citation numbers (e.g., "Cao et al., [6]") instead of author names and years. Additionally, consider dividing the table into two or three sections to accommodate different emergency types. The modeling approach should not be highlighted as a contribution; instead, focus on summarizing single or multi-objective formulations from the literature.

 

4. **Problem Statement**: Before introducing subsections, provide a more comprehensive explanation of the proposed problem. Clarify the main objectives, decision variables, and constraints conceptually. Explain the rationale for dividing this section into subsections and establish clear connections between them.

 

5. **Figure 1**: The paper lacks sufficient detail and descriptions for Figure 1. It is essential to enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of this figure to benefit the readers.

 

6. **Model Formulation**: Similar to the problem statement, provide more justifications and clarifications before introducing subsections in the model formulation section. Explain the reasons for dividing this section and establish clear links between its parts.

 

7. **Notation and Equations**: In the objectives section, replace "M" with "m" for the first summation to align with the notation that index "I" belongs to set "M" ({1, 2, …, m}). Adjust the equations accordingly for consistency.

 

8. **Objective Conflicts**: Elaborate on the conflicts between the objectives in the model formulation. Explain why these objectives cannot be combined into a single objective model and why a multi-objective optimization approach is necessary to highlight their conflicts.

 

9. **Solution Algorithm**: The section on the solution algorithm requires comprehensive revision. Begin by defining a random solution and describing the search space. Explain the search operators, including crossover and mutation operators. Provide details about any heuristic algorithm used in conjunction with the genetic algorithm. Consider reading and citing the paper titled "Efficient Multi-objective Metaheuristic Algorithm for Sustainable Harvest Planning Problem" for additional insights.

 

10. **Comparison with Epsilon Constraint Method**: It is imperative that the authors include a comparison between their proposed multi-objective metaheuristic algorithm and the epsilon constraint method. This comparison should demonstrate the relative performance of the two methods in terms of obtaining Pareto solutions.

 

11. **Multi-Objective Optimization Metrics**: Apply a set of multi-objective optimization metrics to assess the quality of the Pareto solutions generated by the proposed algorithm.

 

12. **Eqs. (24) to (26)**: Clarify the significance of equations (24) to (26) and why the total cost was not considered in the model formulation.

 

13. **Sensitivity Analysis**: Conduct sensitivity analyses on key parameters to illustrate their impact on the objectives and the inherent conflicts between them.

 

14. **Conclusion Section**: The conclusion should offer managerial insights, acknowledge limitations, and suggest avenues for future research.

 

I believe that addressing these comments will significantly enhance the quality and clarity of the paper. Once these issues are adequately resolved, the paper should be reconsidered for publication.

Author Response

We appreciate your positive view on our paper's research topic and approach. We carefully addressed both major and minor comments to improve our paper's quality. Please see the Attach. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper can be accepted.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Could you please check the Attach? Thanks. 

Best, Zhichao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not address my comments accurately. Most of my concerns have not been addressed. Specifically, the comments about the literature review, suggested works for the solution algorithm, validation of multi-objective metaheuristic algorithms with the epsilon constraint method, Pareto-based analysis and multi-objective metrics, and many other comments are ignored by the authors. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Could you please check the Attach? Thanks. 

Best, Zhichao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised draft has been improved.