Research on Energy Saving Effect of Parallel and Perpendicular Yard Layouts under Different Proportions of Transshipment at the Automated Container Terminal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to Manuscript Sustainability-3156985
In this paper, the author establishes an energy consumption model encompassing yard cranes and container trucks to compare the energy consumptions for different ACT layouts. Some comments are given below to improve the paper quality.
1. Is the conclusion of this article generally applicable or for certain specific dock environments and container types?
2. Do you need to consider other necessary factors in practical applications? If yes, what is the influence rate of the layout type?
3. In Table 3 and Table 6, the expression of the Coefficients is too verbose. I suggest that the author should make expressions brief. The same problem appears in Equ. 49 to 58.
All in all, this is a nice piece work in a clear form and the research subject is cutting-edge. A major revision is suggested by the reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIs the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?
Positives:
1) The topic of the article “Research on the Impact of Container Transshipment on the Selection of Layout Types for Automated Container” is relevant to the field.
2) The aim of the work presented in the article is clear. But the weakness concerns the title of the article (see weakness).
3) The structure of the article is well elaborated. It includes and underline needs and the importance of the research undertaken from the energy efficiency point of view.
Weakness:
4) The objection regards the title of the article. The title of the article does not reflect the aim presented in the article. I suggest the new title: “Research on the container transshipment efficiency at the maritime automated container terminal depending on the arrangement of containers in the storage yard” or You can propose the new one.
Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
Positives:
5) The article contains a few self-citations, but their number is acceptable.
6) Cited references are relevant. Most of them are from the last 5 years according to requirements of MDPI.
Weakness:
7) It is a pity that the article did not cite more publications from around the world from the last 15-20 years. There are many very good suggestions and practices in modeling transport systems in maritime container terminals.
Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?
Positives:
8) The general aim and the concept is sound from scientific point of view.
9) Generally the methodology from scientific and mathematical point of view is proper. The comparison of two different types of arrangements of containers in the storage yard is also good idea. But the assumptions of the model does not reflect the real state of cargo handling and transfer technology in maritime container terminals in the part of the ship's berth (please see weakness below).
Weaknesses:
10) The main and very serious weaknesses of the assumption of the model is that the part of the ship's berth contains too many simplifications, that causes inconsistency with the real state. This is a very weak point of this work.
11) The organization of reloading and transport of containers directly under the ship to shore container crane, which You propose in the model can only be accepted for very small river class container ships or small feeder ships up to 500 TEU, but not to container ships the class of ULCC.
12) I am afraid that if this article is published in this form, it will be cited in the future in negative way as a gap in the actual state of knowledge, because the article does not presented the real assumption that should reflect the real state.
13) Many advice and the best practice in modelling of container terminals You can find in the articles published last 15-20 years. In those articles are many very important experiences, which would give You more honest view of the issue of modeling transport systems and the models would not have to be so simplified.
It's a pity that MDPI asks about references from last 5 years.
Suggestions:
14) I am not able to suggest you too much, because I am not allowed by MDPI to include in the review report articles for citation.
Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?
Weakness:
15) Due to the fact that the model proposed in the article is purely theoretical and does not contain correct assumptions applied in modeling of transport systems in automated maritime container terminals, it may not be applicable in the industry.
Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.
Weaknesses:
16) Please to check the Table 8 (page 18) – it look to be too narrow and looks to be a little bit cut from the right side.
17) The header is missing page numbering starting from page 18.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Positives:
18) Conclusions are consisted with the evidence and arguments. They are coherent with results and with the aim of the research.
Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.
19) The “Data Availability Statement” is not included.
20) The ethics statement is not included. The article does not include aspects that will be subject to ethical law.
Kindly Regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting and useful. Given the focus of the journal, I recommend the authors add a direct relationship (link) to sustainability or sustainable development. Perhaps it would be useful to develop the sentence or idea:
"[6] conducted a comprehensive simulation study on ACT layouts, evaluating them from efficiency, economic and environmental perspectives" into criteria or pillars of sustainable development.
I recommend that the reference to sources in square brackets at the beginning of the sentences be modified, or the wording at the beginning of the sentences be modified.
In the conclusion, I recommend that the authors add the limitations of their research, and what else may be relevant to the findings presented. In the conclusion, I recommend emphasizing that the authors dealt with one variable, "the proportion of container transshipment". I recommend that the authors add in the conclusion a relationship (link) to sustainability or sustainable development or an indication of the relevance of the research findings to sustainability or sustainable development.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the reviewer's concerns have been addressed.
Author Response
Comments:All the reviewer's concerns have been addressed.
Response:Thank you for your revision suggestions to make our articles better.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Xiaojun Li, Dear Co-Authors,
Thank You for Your response to my review.
I realize, that I have “severely” evaluated the methodology of your work, but this is due to my long time research experience (more that 25 years) in the modeling and operation of maritime ports, especially of maritime container terminals. For this reason, I have many doubts about publishing articles, which includes information that are unclear and may even mislead the reader. I am glad that You understood my criticisms and You are going to consider improving the modeling methodology in the future articles.
In relation to the current (revised) version of the article it can be accepted as the theoretical variant. I appreciate Your contribution to the model elaborated in this article.
New title: "Research on energy saving effect of parallel and perpendicular yard layouts under different proportions of transshipment at the automated container terminal" - is fantastic!
Kindly Regards,
Author Response
Comments:In relation to the current (revised) version of the article it can be accepted as the theoretical variant. I appreciate Your contribution to the model elaborated in this article.
Response:Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions for our paper, which broaden our research horizon and provide us with very good ideas and directions for our next research. I believe we can form more and bigger research results in the direction you pointed out. Thank you again for your review.
