Evaluating Competitiveness of Container Shipping Operators in the Sustainability and Digitalization Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting thematic area but unfortunately lacks of a clear objective. What is the aim of this research? To provide insights on shipping lines that can better inform their business strategies? The objective should be clearly stated.

A review of relevant literature is being conducted in the introductory section. It should be a separate section according to my opinion, with the introduction better setting the context of the research and describing the objectives, beneficials, etc. The literature review itself is rather brief and lacks of a clear structure. It is not evident what were the insights retrieved from the review and the gaps that the authors aim to address. These should be described in more detail.

The methodology is being described a bit better, but again it is not clear how the indicators were selected (aren’t any other indicators that can contribute into shaping the 3 factors?). A validation process should be undertaken, using preferably a participatory approach. 

Again, there is no clear explanation of which exact data were collected and included in the analysis from the top 14 shipping companies that formed the targeted sample. Weren’t any inconsistencies on the way data are being reported by those companies? If yes, how were these handled?

For the indirect indicator ‘level of science and technology’, reference is made on the technologies applied in the port sector through subsidiaries of the shipping companies. According to my opinion, this is a bit out of scope and the technologies vessels have up-taken (e.g. for increasing environmental performance) should be considered instead. 

Results and conclusions are very weak not providing any real added value to research or practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English is moderate. Especially the abstract and the introduction should be checked again carefully and be considerably enhanced.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have made modifications one by one with reference to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Whilst the topic is of interest to researchers in this field the paper has serious inadequacies in terms of the use of English, the inconsistency in references, its length (which is far too long), and a serious lack of justification of some of the assertions made. This latter point is particularly important in that in lines 31-44  for example there is no explanation of the strategies cited (what are they and whose are they with what purpose?), where the majority of research claim comes from,  and why methods such as AHP are employed.  These inadequacies continue throughout the paper. All assertions must be justified.   Examples of the need for more justification can be found in lines 112-120).Finally the inconsistencies in the references at the end are unacceptable - eg order of surnames and initials. 

The keywords could be reduced in length (why so many 'factors'?)

Overall the paper needs complete rewriting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is poor at times and needs rewriting

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have made modifications one by one with reference to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valid effort in need of substantial improvement:

1. The title is not focused on the essence of the research in the way the focus transpires in the conclusions. The paper focuses on the competitiveness analysis of major liner operators. This should be made clear in the title which could be something like "Evaluating competitiveness of major liner operators: " and then add an appropriate subtitle perhaps "in the sustainability and digitalisation era"  

2. For similar reasons as for the title,  the abstract  needs to be rewritten; in any way,  it needs rewriting for clarity and structure.

3. The literature review could well constitute a separate second section with the same title and be more structured.

4. Figure 1 needs a better title

5. Not much literature is provided on the entropy method and its applications in other industry analyses

6. No literature, validation process or "discovery" method for the indices of operations strength is provided.

7.Brand influence is not discussed but only in practical terms and this again without  providing a more general framework or literature on applications of the concept.

8. Conclusions should constitute  Section 5 of a revised version and focus more on the methodological innovation of the paper than on individual company results; these results should ideally be grouped in what should be now a section 4 entitled  "Discussion" where the results for each liner company should be presented and analysed together drawing, hopefully, some more general conclusions on trends and main strategic directions followed by them.

9. Many "reference not found" indications on the file text mean what?Have they been taken out? 

10. Add to the references on all major concepts and methods employed in the analysis.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Terms (e.g. epidemic/pandemic, uncertain/uncertainty), need to be used properly and syntax to be improved. A native or very fluent speaker should edit the final text for clarity.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have made modifications one by one with reference to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I completed the review of the article entitled „A Comparative Analysis of the Operation Situation of Maritime Shipping Enterprises Considering the Carbon-Neutral Background”. I consider that the article is an original writing that enhances the existing body of knowledge related to the operational status and international competitiveness of shipping enterprises based on direct factors including environmental protection, service, and scale factors. and indirect indicators including customer satisfaction, enterprise research level, and brand influence.

The article is intresting but there are some concerns. Therefore, to increase the scientific soundness, we made comments and recommendations to the authors, which are presented in the Comments and Suggestions for Authors section of the Review Report.

1. For a better understanding, the authors should carefully revise the Abstract and further high-light the main contributions of this paper. I would recommend to emphasize more in the abstract the relevance, originality and quality of the research, persuasively suggesting to the potential reader the items of interest that the work proposes.

2. I recommend emphasizing in the introductory part of the paper, pages 1-3, better clarifying how paper is organized (what are the sections of the paper), what is the research gap, what the research questions are and to formulate the study hypotheses.

3. Given the interest of readers of Sustainability - Open Access Journal, we must not forget that these issues are also related to the open nature of academic scientific research, which capitalizes on its results through publication. From this perspective, in my opinion a more rigorous methodology section should be included. I recommend to present the research method much more clearly and in detail, providing the necessary elements for the reproduction of research by any other research group that uses it exactly (the repetitive and reproducible nature of science).

4. In my opinion, in order to bring the study to a more solid conclusion, some key elements could be elaborated to strengthen the impact and clarity of the conclusions with emphasis on the following directions: enhanced summary of findings, acknowledgment of limitations, clarification of contributions, expansion on future research directions. I recommend the authors to present in a more promising manner the future research opportunities which are considered feasible and scientifically fertile in the field.

5. I recommend using a recent bibliographic reference to support the statement "The shipping industry accounts for 80% of international cargo transport and is a vital carrier for international trade", lines 32-33.

6. The wording often appears in the paper: Error! Reference source not found: lines 96, 197, 227, 298, 299, 534. You must correct the text!

I believe that after making the corrections suggested to the authors, the paper will have a much greater scientific soundness.

Good luck and best regards!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have made modifications one by one with reference to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements but, in my opinion, there are still several issues that need to be addressed. I list them below:

 

p.1-line 40: “covers a wide range” of what? something is missing here (e.g. “a wide range of topics”)?

p.1-line 45: “operational” instead of “operation”

The number of each reference should be included in the text. This is currently missing.

p.2-lines 70-73: the reference added (Vu et al., 2019) seems not to be relevant, and there is no logical connection with the text that follows. 

p.5-line 191: I wouldn’t characterize greening efforts as a ‘trend’ but as the new reality. Furthermore, no reference on the IMO’s regulation mentioned has been included. This should be added.

p.8-line 289: why top 14 and not top 10 for example? What is the criterion (or criteria) used for the ranking (since no reference has been included)?

Table 6: It should be CF and not CE for Carbon Footprint. For all environmental indicators, I think the authors should explain how the data collected were made comparable. 

Following the above comment, p.12-lines 352-354: shouldn’t environmental factors be calculated per unit of volume or voyage? Otherwise, it is only logical that companies with the largest volumes and greater number of voyages will rank low.

p.13-line 382: Is only container transport taken into consideration? This has not been clearly stated previously in the manuscript, and reference to total TEUs in capacity is made here. This should be clearly stated.

Sections 4.4.1 & 4.4.2: Please provide the data sources. There is no reference included.

Section 4.4.2: I have to disagree here with the authors’ response, since this is based on the level to which shipping companies have invested on port operations (i.e. through their subsidiaries).

For the results (Discussion), I have to stick to my original view. The value they add is marginal. Furthermore, it is not clear how the more detailed points are extracted from the analysis. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  We have tried our best to revise the paper according to your comments point by point. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All much better now and adequate for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments on the revision below

1.The title should be in one sentence without : before "in"

2.Again the reference to liner is missing in the abstract. It should be put in more of the abstract phrases to specify which type of shipping company you target in the paper.

3.Wang et al, 2021 should be replaced by an UNCTAD or other primary source of world seaborne trade data.

3. "Under the guidance", in the third line of the introduction,  does not convey the meaning; "In view of" does convey the meaning.

4."of domestic and foreign" should be replaced with "of international" 

5.  The passage "  οn shipping enterprises covers a wide range, from the international competitiveness of shipping enterprises to the status quo and strategy of shipping enterprises, a large number of studies have formed a relatively complete evaluation index system, and the rich results and conclusions obtained have certain reference significance for the future development of enterprises"   should be  written   as "οn shipping enterprises covers a wide range of subjects ranging from  shipping competitiveness  to the status quo and strategy of shipping companies. In a large number of studies  a relatively complete evaluation index system has been formed  and the rich results and conclusions obtained through it are significant for the future development of shipping enterprises"  

6. The rest of the introduction also needs re-writing. "comparative analysis" of what? I does not say. 

7. Again in the rest of the  introduction text the term liner or container or liner container should be employed to delimitate which companies you refer to.

8. In the section entitled "Related work" (which you can also call literature review) you still need to structure the analysis better: show first the methods employed to assess company competitiveness in general, then to assess shipping companies, then discuss the relevant literature grouping  papers by methods. It also needs some better structure of sentences some of which seem incomplete, vague or without the proper punctuation so it makes reading difficult.

9. Does this "The proposed comprehensive analysis method consisted of the entropy value method[29], validation, and comparative analysis" mean "The proposed comprehensive analysis methodology  combines  the entropy value method[29], validation, and comparative analysis"?

10. A much better ending through the concluding section this time! However, you need to use the term liner or liner container there as well in order to make clear where these results apply.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some improvement necessary.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  We have tried our best to revise the paper according to your comments point by point. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fine as is now.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Your comments are of great help for us to improve the paper.