Fuzzy Logic in Selection of Maritime Search and Rescue Units

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper regards an interesting topic. The paper is well structured and well presented.

On the other hand, the paper is just applying well known methods to a specific area. No innovative alterations are proposed. And the applied methods, although they are heavily used for years, they are described in great details.

 The author should shorten the descriptions of the proposed well known methods (Promethee II, Fuzzy logic).

Also a justification of why he choose Promethee II among others MCDA methods should be given.

The significance of the paper should also be stressed, pointing also out, its contribution to the area, because this is not apparent to the present state of the paper.

 

 

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his interesting observations. They have inspired me to extend my analysis and make some important changes. The detailed answer is given below.

Various amendments have been made to the article to underline the importance of research. Chapter 4 (Case study) has been restructured. The characteristics of the study were added, the procedure was discussed in more detail, the number of analysed ships was increased. The case study has been divided into two parts. One concerns the assessment of a group of ships in all criteria, where some parameters are obtained using fuzzy logic. The other shows the result of the assessment on limited parameters. More tables and figures are included in the article. There is also a more detailed analysis of the results.

MCDA and fuzzy logic methods are well known in some industries. But perhaps they are less well known in the maritime sector. The description presented here is maybe detailed but it allows to understand the principle of the analysis performed. Some changes have been made and the choice of these methods has also been justified in the text.

Research work on the support of the maritime rescue system is carried out to a limited extent compared to other industries. There are still many elements that need work. Ship selection is an example of this. My aim was to show the essence of the problem and the core of the solution. I wanted to present the applicability of fuzzing in maritime rescue, according to the title of the Special Issue ("The Development and Application of Fuzzy Logic"). However, the reviewer is right to indicate the need for a deeper study. Without extending the analysis this would not be clear enough for the viewer. I hope the current way of presenting the problem and the solution will be more appropriate.

Please find attached the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main contribution of this paper is to improve the MCDA methodology with fuzzy logic to solve the problem of unreliable or missing data in the selection of SAR vessels at sea. The paper develops fuzzy rules and presents the principle of operation of the controller.

In the following, some issues necessitating clarification or modification are listed. These issues could be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication.

1. The paper is not technically sound w.r.t. its actual contribution is not outstanding enough.

2. The literature overview could be further improved. Existing literatures concerning successful application of fuzzy logic in other similar fields, main decision-making problems and methods studied in the SAR at sea should be included in this part.

Missing related works are as follows:

[1] Abi-Zeid I, Frost J R. SARPlan: A decision support system for Canadian Search and Rescue Operations[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2005, 162(3):630-653.

[2] Karatas M. A dynamic multi-objective location-allocation model for search and rescue assets[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 288.

[3] Karatas M. Hydrogen energy storage method selection using fuzzy axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 45(32).

[4] Akbari A, Eiselt H A, Pelot R. A maritime search and rescue location analysis considering multiple criteria, with simulated demand[J]. INFOR Information Systems and Operational Research, 2017, 56(1):1-23.

… …

3. In Case study section, the presentation is not clear.

(1) The case and corresponding dataset description is hard to follow and understand. The experimental procedure and experimental results should be better explained.

(2) There is no corresponding comparative experiment to verify the effectiveness of the method.

(3) The experimental process does not correspond to the theoretical process shown in Figure 2 in Chapter 3. There is lack of the modelling of decision-maker’s preferences.

(4) In Fig. 5., the input value, “12”, contradicts the input value, “16”, in the text. And It’s not clear how the output value,”43.5”, is derived.

(5) Only two criteria are involved in the evaluation of the ship in the case, which is not convincing and practical.

(6) It would be better to decompose this part into some subsections, such as case description, simulation procedure, results.

4. The authors should carefully proofread the manuscript. Part of obvious mistakes have been underlined in the attachment.

(1) Pay attention to the predicate tense and plural forms.

(2) Abbreviations should be accompanied by their full name when they first appear.

(3)There are some other minor mistakes, like, it’s ” MCDA” rather than ” MDCA”.

5. The presentation of the figures is also not clear enough. Its explanation is also much hard to understand. Especially, in Fig. 2., the logic of the content is not very logical or realistic.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you kindly for your precise review. I know you have spent a lot of effort in preparing the comments. I have taken into account all suggestions and proposals. This allowed me to make important changes and additions. The detailed answer is given below.

1. The paper is not technically sound w.r.t. its actual contribution is not outstanding enough.

Author's answer: Fuzzy logic methods are well known and widely used in various sectors. I noticed that this method can also be used in the area I am interested in. My main goal was to present an idea and a way to use it in a specific field. The topic of maritime rescue is fortunately being raised more and more in scientific papers. However, existing mathematical and IT solutions only deal with some elements in this field only. I also followed the title of the Special Issue ("The Development and Application of Fuzzy Logic"). I have been working on a decision support system for some time now. I am looking for new methods and tools to support coordinators. During my previous work (e.g. on the MCDA method) I have faced problems of missing or uncertain data. While looking for a solution to this problem I decided to propose some additions. I have made many changes to the article to more accurately highlight the importance of the research carried out. The main changes concern Chapter 4 Case study.

2. The literature overview could be further improved. Existing literatures concerning successful application of fuzzy logic in other similar fields, main decision-making problems and methods studied in the SAR at sea should be included in this part.

Missing related works are as follows:

• Abi-Zeid I, Frost J R. SARPlan: A decision support system for Canadian Search and Rescue Operations[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2005, 162(3):630-653.
• Karatas M. A dynamic multi-objective location-allocation model for search and rescue assets[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 288.
• Karatas M. Hydrogen energy storage method selection using fuzzy axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 45(32).
• Akbari A, Eiselt H A, Pelot R. A maritime search and rescue location analysis considering multiple criteria, with simulated demand[J]. INFOR Information Systems and Operational Research, 2017, 56(1):1-23.

Author's answer: A literature background has been reviewed. New entries have been added to the bibliography. Useful studies and results will always be the basis for further research.

3. In Case study section, the presentation is not clear.

• The case and corresponding dataset description is hard to follow and understand. The experimental procedure and experimental results should be better explained.

Author's answer: The description, procedure and results have been reworked. Tables and figures were prepared. The study was divided into two cases: analysis with limited data and analysis with fuzzy values. Five vessels were considered.

• There is no corresponding comparative experiment to verify the effectiveness of the method.

Author's answer: In order to improve this point, two cases were compared. One of them considers the assessment of a group of ships based solely on 4 criteria. The other shows a full assessment. Comments on the study are provided in chapters 4 and 5.

• The experimental process does not correspond to the theoretical process shown in Figure 2 in Chapter 3. There is lack of the modelling of decision-maker’s preferences.

Author's answer: The missing elements have been added. The structure of Chapter 4 (Case study) has been revised.

• In Fig. 5., the input value, “12”, contradicts the input value, “16”, in the text. And It’s not clear how the output value,”43.5”, is derived.

Author's answer: A numerical error occurs in the text. The analysis has been extended to a group of 5 vessels. Data are presented in tables and figures. Descriptions are included in the text.

• Only two criteria are involved in the evaluation of the ship in the case, which is not convincing and practical.

Author's answer: The entire analysis includes 6 criteria. Four of them have known values. The lack of values of two criteria is simulated. A method of data generation has been developed for this case. Details of this process are included in the text.

• It would be better to decompose this part into some subsections, such as case description, simulation procedure, results.

Author's answer: I think this is a good idea. My intention was to present the core of the solution. But that may not have been clear enough. Therefore, Chapter 4 has been restructured. The study was extended to a larger number of vessels. Two assessment cases were analysed. This provided clearer results. They will help to explain how the suitability of ships for SAR operations is assessed.

 

4. The authors should carefully proofread the manuscript. Part of obvious mistakes have been underlined in the attachment.

(1) Pay attention to the predicate tense and plural forms.

(2) Abbreviations should be accompanied by their full name when they first appear.

(3)There are some other minor mistakes, like, it’s ” MCDA” rather than ” MDCA”.

 

Author's answer: Grammatical and spelling errors have been corrected. Several sentences have been restructured. I will pay more attention to this side of the work.

 

5. The presentation of the figures is also not clear enough. Its explanation is also much hard to understand. Especially, in Fig. 2., the logic of the content is not very logical or realistic.

Author's answer: This figure shows how the assessment method is chosen. There is enough information about this in the text, so the figure has been removed.

Please find the mauscript attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper topic is interesting, but, there are some weaknesses of the manuscript, which needs to be improved in greater revision.

The organization and comprehensibility of the content in this paper is very poor. The review literature should be systemically and critically reviewed and organized around some kind of a framework. What have learned, what are the gaps, what are the areas that need more attention? The manuscript lacks a theory or a framework to guide the investigation. 
It is important to provide a more in-depth and organized analysis of the documents. The authors have to convince the reader what the result means, why it is important, what it contributes to existing research. The motivation for the study is insufficiently explained.

In the results, the authors have need discuss the findings and their contribution at the knowledge and it's Important to understand the international perspective of the journal. 

The paper lacks any significant conclusions and recommendations. The conclusion is short and does not reflect the quality of the article. In general, the results are very simple.  It is important for the author to provide a more organized and in-depth analysis of the information.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer for his contribution to the manuscript evaluation. I have taken all suggestions into consideration. This made it easier for me to make some corrections. The detailed answer is given below.

A number of changes have been made to correct the gaps identified by the reviewer. Chapter 4 has been restructured. A description of the study was introduced and the procedure was discussed in more detail. The number of vessels studied has been increased. The study was based on six criteria The value of four of them was known. The two missing ones were obtained by defuzzification. The analysis was divided into two cases. In one, a group of ships was assessed using all parameters (MDCA supported by fuzzy logic outcomes). In the second case, a group of ships was analysed in a limited way. The results are presented in the form of tables and figures. The result of both cases was compared. Relevant comments have been included in the text.

Furthermore a literature background has been reviewed. New entries have been added to the bibliography.

MCDA and fuzzy logic are well known and used in various sectors but not much in maritime rescue. Existing mathematical and IT solutions only deal with some elements in this field only. My main aim was to present the core of the problem and essence of the solution. I also followed the title of the Special Issue ("The Development and Application of Fuzzy Logic"). However, the reviewer correctly points out that the analysis presented discusses the case too insignificantly. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions have been expanded. I hope the correction will underline the importance of research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors need to discuss with the results and the literature review.
The literature review should be systemically and critically reviewed.
The paper lacks the discussion section and conclusions, recommendations and significant results under scientific support.

Author Response

I would like to kindly thank the reviewer for taking the time to make suggestions and comments on my work.

As suggested by the reviewer, the relevant sections have been revised.

In the previous version of the manuscript, the discussion of results was partly placed in the summary and conclusion sections. However, the reviewer is right in pointing out that it is better to discuss the results and recommendations in more detail. Therefore, the last part of the paper was changed and some additions were made.

The information about the obtained results was also supplemented. The importance of the conducted research has been emphasised and further research direction has been outlined.

Research in the field of maritime rescue is not as extensive as in other sectors, but there is a great need for assistance at sea. Therefore, support in a stressful decision-making process is suggested. The proposed method of using fuzzy logic in multi-criteria analysis has great potential and can assist in saving lives at sea.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf