Prediction of Transport Performance Development Due to the Impact of COVID-19 Measures in the Context of Sustainable Mobility in Railway Passenger Transport in the Slovak Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is timely and important, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public transport around the world.

Unfortunately, some shortcomings reduce the overall value of the article.

1. The material requires reconstruction and expansion of the introductory section. The model proposed by the authors and the practical case study should be positioned in light of other, current research.

2. Since the authors describe in Chapter 3. Materials and Methods that they use existing methods in the proposed methodology, should precisely indicate (i) their contribution, (ii) the novelty of their contribution, (iii) research gaps and explain (iv) why it is worth filling this gap.

It is also necessary to explain in more detail the reasons for the decision to select particular methods included in one's methodology, as well as the reasons for rejecting others.

3. The description of your methodology and the scheme presented in Figure 5 should be expanded.

4. The literature review part requires a broader examination and showing what the current state of affairs is along with a discussion on this topic. The literature review section also lacks a discussion of several important works.

5. The article lacks hypotheses and research questions.

6. In the article, the authors should deepen the summary part, highlighting the practical implications of the study. Conclusions should also reflect the novel contributions of this work.

7. Authors should indicate the limitations of the proposed methodology.

8. The connection of the proposed material with the planes of sustainable development should be emphasized.

9. The Abstract section should be shortened to approximately 200 words.

10. Figures 10 and 11 should be discussed more broadly and in a more accessible way.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments.

 

Comments from the Reviewer:

 

The topic of the article is timely and important, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public transport around the world.

 

Unfortunately, some shortcomings reduce the overall value of the article.

 

1.The material requires reconstruction and expansion of the introductory section. The model proposed by the authors and the practical case study should be positioned in light of other, current research.

 

• Thank you for your comments, the introductory part was slightly changed and expanded, where we described the background and starting points of our research in more detail. Current research and other publications dealing with this issue were also described and supplemented in the second chapter (Literature overview).

 

2.Since the authors describe in Chapter 3. Materials and Methods that they use existing methods in the proposed methodology, should precisely indicate (i) their contribution, (ii) the novelty of their contribution, (iii) research gaps and explain (iv) why it is worth filling this gap.

It is also necessary to explain in more detail the reasons for the decision to select particular methods included in one's methodology, as well as the reasons for rejecting others.

 

• Thank you for your comments, the mentioned methods, their novelty, benefit and appropriateness of selection were described in more detail in the third chapter on page 8.

 

3.The description of your methodology and the scheme presented in Figure 5 should be expanded.

 

• We also thank you for your comments, the description of the proposed methodology, including the explanation of the individual sub-steps, as well as the description of Figure 5 are mentioned below them.

 

4. The literature review part requires a broader examination and showing what the current state of affairs is along with a discussion on this topic. The literature review section also lacks a discussion of several important works.

 

• Thank you for the reminder. We processed this in the literature review section, where we expanded the literature review with articles and studies dealing with the current state of public passenger transport, i.e. the state a few years after the pandemic. Studies dealing with the impact of the covid-19 disease in Slovakia as well as in several countries around the world were also supplemented. Studies describing the impact of Covid-19 on the mobility of the population are also supplemented.

 

5. The article lacks hypotheses and research questions.

 

• Thank you for this observation. Two research questions (hypotheses) were added on page 9 at the end of the third chapter. Moreover, the discussion on page 15 explains the reason why these hypotheses were accepted.

 

6. In the article, the authors should deepen the summary part, highlighting the practical implications of the study. Conclusions should also reflect the novel contributions of this work.

 

• Thanks for the comment. This was incorporated in several places in the article (both in the discussion and in the conclusion).

 

7. Authors should indicate the limitations of the proposed methodology.

 

• Thank you. This is summarized in the discussion section.

 

8. The connection of the proposed material with the planes of sustainable development should be emphasized.

 

• Thank you for this reminder. The mentioned connection was explained and supplemented with a few sentences at the end of the introduction, as well as at the end of the discussion and at the end of the conclusion.

 

9. The Abstract section should be shortened to approximately 200 words.

 

• Thank you. The abstract was adjusted to the required number of words.

 

10. Figures 10 and 11 should be discussed more broadly and in a more accessible way.

 

• Thank you for the reminder. A closer discussion and description of Figures 10 and 11 have been added below the figures. There are explained the principles of creating individual train traffic diagrams and the system of reducing particular train connections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article completes the analysis of the transport performance of passenger rail transport in the case study of Slovakia, and on the basis of the analysis of the decline in the transport performance of passenger rail transport and the extent of the measures taken, it proposes a new methodology and procedure for the introduction of anti-epidemic measures, in particular in the context of narrowing down the scope of passenger rail transport. There are some problems with the article:

1. It is recommended that the authors present in the introductory part that some countries already have a relevant policy and analyse the benefits and shortcomings arising from the implementation of this policy, and derive the existing policy shortcomings to the research contribution of this study. This will strengthen the logic of the introduction.

2. In the Literature Review, it is mentioned that ‘public transport, especially long-distance, large-scale and 139-region railway passenger transport, is the most potential source of epidemic risk’, but there is no relevant research to support this, so it is suggested that the authors modify the statement or add relevant evidence.

3. Most of the authors in the introduction mentioned the background of the study. It is recommended that the authors add information on the methodology used, the problems addressed, and the contribution of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is incorrect use of punctuation in the article. It is recommended that the author recheck the formatting of the article and the use of punctuation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments.

 

Comments from the Reviewer:

The article completes the analysis of the transport performance of passenger rail transport in the case study of Slovakia, and on the basis of the analysis of the decline in the transport performance of passenger rail transport and the extent of the measures taken, it proposes a new methodology and procedure for the introduction of anti-epidemic measures, in particular in the context of narrowing down the scope of passenger rail transport. There are some problems with the article:

 

1. It is recommended that the authors present in the introductory part that some countries already have a relevant policy and analyse the benefits and shortcomings arising from the implementation of this policy, and derive the existing policy shortcomings to the research contribution of this study. This will strengthen the logic of the introduction.

 

• Thank you for your comments and observations. The mentioned methods and relevant policy are mentioned in the introduction and in the second chapter (Literature overview). These sections have been expanded and supplemented with more specific information. There were added four specific countries in which the pandemic situation was described as an example in page 4. We also refer to sources that have been added to References.

 

2. In the Literature Review, it is mentioned that ‘public transport, especially long-distance, large-scale and 139-region railway passenger transport, is the most potential source of epidemic risk’, but there is no relevant research to support this, so it is suggested that the authors modify the statement or add relevant evidence.

 

• Thank you for your comment. This was supplemented in the literature review section. We have added several studies that dealt with evidence of an increased risk of transmission of the Covid-19 disease in trains or in public passenger transport.

 

3. Most of the authors in the introduction mentioned the background of the study. It is recommended that the authors add information on the methodology used, the problems addressed, and the contribution of the study.

 

• We also thank you for your comments. The background of the study, the motive of the research, current problems as well as the basic starting points for the scientific solution of this issue with a connection to sustainable development and sustainable mobility were added to the introduction. Other supplementary information was also added to the discussion. An extended description of the proposed methodology was added as well as the benefits of our research, which will be reflected directly in practice.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is incorrect use of punctuation in the article. It is recommended that the author recheck the formatting of the article and the use of punctuation.

 

• Thank you. This has been edited throughout the paper.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accept in present form