An Index Model for the Evaluation of the Performance of Lock Navigation Scheduling Rules Considering the Perspective of Stakeholders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting and well written. The suggested method is intersting.
Two notes for clarification.
In pages 8 & 9 and Table 3 you suggested that the obtained was combined with expert opinion. indly may you detail this experiment, number of participants, the questions asked, etc. ?
In page 15 you mentioned a "questionnaire survey". Kindly may you detail this experiment, number of participants, the questions asked, etc. ? Then how it was translated into th Table 5?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of the entire team, I would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to you. Thank you for dedicating your time, energy, and expertise to reviewing our paper. Your feedback and suggestions during the review process have been immensely valuable, enabling us to refine and enhance the quality of our work.
Comment 1：In pages 8 & 9 and Table 3 you suggested that the obtained was combined with expert opinion. indly may you detail this experiment, number of participants, the questions asked, etc. ?
Response 1：Thank you for pointing out the problems regarding the experiment, and your rigorous suggestions have improved the level of the article. In the previous paragraph of Table 3, the relevant information has been added as you requested, as shown in the following question:
The sample data used in this paper is a combination of actual vessel crossing data and simulation data. Since the reservation rule has not yet been implemented in the Three Gorges locks, this study simulates the reservation mode by imposing the con-straints of the reservation rule and utilizing the JAVA platform to simulate the reser-vation mode for vessels passing through the locks in 2021. Data from 91,489 upstream and downstream vessels passing through the locks can be obtained for statistical anal-ysis. Due to the relevant navigation regulations, there are quantitative requirements on daily lockage number, daily vessel number of passing locks, and other indicators. For example, daily lockage numbers should reach at least 14 lockages to avoid the congestion of vessels in the dam area. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the opinions of navigation management experts to divide the node state value domain.
In this study, a total of five engineers who have been engaged in navigation man-agement, professors who have researched navigation management topics in universi-ties, and captains with rich experience were invited to divide the state value domains of each node according to the characteristics of the daily data and the requirements of the regulations on navigation management, as shown in Table 3.
Comment 2：In page 15 you mentioned a "questionnaire survey". Kindly may you detail this experiment, number of participants, the questions asked, etc. ? Then how it was translated into th Table 5?
Response 2：Similar to the previous question, we have added to the questions you asked in the article:
To quantify the attitude and importance of each stakeholder to efficiency, safety, and fairness. We conducted a questionnaire survey involving 15 professionals from the navigation management department, shipping companies, and coastal government. From the perspective of work, participants rated the importance of different criteria in five levels, and the total score was 1 under the same criteria. Through the results of the questionnaire survey, we can get the fuzzy comprehensive analysis table of the influ-ence of each stakeholder as shown in Table 5.
Your critical thinking and insightful comments have provided invaluable guidance, allowing us to delve deeper into our research topic. Your professional advice not only aids in the improvement of the current paper but also positively impacts our future research endeavors.
We are honored and grateful that you took the time from your busy schedule to review our paper. We sincerely hope to have the opportunity to collaborate with you again in advancing the field of academia.
Thank you once again for your diligent work and support.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUpon careful review of the manuscript, I would like to offer the following suggestions:
1. The manuscript revisits the well-trodden topic of index models for navigation scheduling rules. Given the extensive research already available in this area, it is imperative for the authors to elucidate the unique contributions of their work. The manuscript should provide compelling motivations that clearly differentiate it from existing studies.
2. The manuscript currently contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors that detract from its readability and professional quality. For instance:
-On page 2, line 97, the phrase "Based on the coupling of SNA and BN within the domains of graph theory and probability theory." is missing a main verb.
-On page 3, line 104, "Proposing a new MAGDM method for resilience measurement of transportation systems under uncertainty, through combining the improved composite index method with the BN" requires a subject to complete the sentence.
-On page 5, line 222, "Before modeling the evaluation of the performance of lock navigation scheduling rules." also lacks a main verb.
-Additionally, there appears to be a consistent absence of punctuation following mathematical formulas throughout the manuscript. I strongly recommend a thorough proofreading and editing pass to correct these issues before resubmission.
3. In Equation (8), the multiplication by 1000 is not intuitively clear. A detailed justification for this specific numerical value would greatly enhance the reader's understanding of its relevance and appropriateness in this context.
4. It would be beneficial for the manuscript to include a detailed summary that highlights the key learnings readers can expect from this study. This summary should articulate the study's contributions and practical implications in a manner that is accessible and informative.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript currently contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors that detract from its readability and professional quality.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. Please see the attachment for the specific response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is quite interesting and leaves a pleasant impression. This study proposes an index model based on the Bayesian networks to solve the problem of evaluation of the performance of lock navigation scheduling rules. I consider the topic quite original. The references are appropriate. The pictures are detailed and clear and complement the text of the article well. I think that the article can be accepted for publication after minor edits.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language is good.
There are some typos.
Line 333 Bayesian networks (BN) are a method of inference... ARE->IS
Add percentage signs to table 7.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of the entire team, I would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to you. Thank you for dedicating your time, energy, and expertise to reviewing our paper. Your feedback and suggestions during the review process have been immensely valuable, enabling us to refine and enhance the quality of our work.
The two spelling errors and punctuation omissions you mentioned in your review have been corrected in the manuscript. Your critical thinking and insightful comments have provided invaluable guidance, allowing us to delve deeper into our research topic. Your professional advice not only aids in the improvement of the current paper but also positively impacts our future research endeavors.
We are honored and grateful that you took the time from your busy schedule to review our paper. We sincerely hope to have the opportunity to collaborate with you again in advancing the field of academia.
Thank you once again for your diligent work and support.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
