Optimizing Transportation between Sea Ports and Regions by Road Transport and Rail and Inland Waterway Transport Means Including “Last Mile” Solutions
, Birute Plačiene 1, Martynas Jonkus 1, Donatas Paulauskas 1, Raimondas Barzdžiukas 1, Artur Kaulitzky 1 and Martynas Simutis 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper examines interesting topic. Introduction should introduce the topic in better manner - problem is not focused there and there is not explained in which manner this manuscript will contribute, so there improvement there is a must. Also, authors should explain in introduction the structure of this paper and how its part will be helpful. All relevant references are cited in introduction. All the cited references are relevant to the research. Authors have conducted a review of the "state of the art", but they should add table which shows what is done and what is still missing. Methods used will be easier understood after reading that table. Results are clearly presented. Conclusion section must include comparison of this survey with previous research, limitations of this research and future research avenues. Accordingly, authors should improve paper and correct those minor methodological errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Send to You our notes to Your reviewer report in PDF,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper falls within a research area that has received wide attention over the years, with several articles making a considerable contribution. Its approach is however not novel, while it presents some serious limitations.
Overall, the paper should undergo extensive proof-reading since several editing mistakes and grammar issues exist in all sections making it difficult to understand, in some cases, what the authors mean.
The challenge to be addressed is superficially presented and the literature review is very limited not adding real value to the paper as it currently stands. I think the example with the case in Poland (connection of Gdansk and Gdynia ports to Warsaw) is unnecessary, while I fail to understand why specific reference is made to tug boats given the context addressed.
The model presented in section 3 considers only some basic parameters, significantly limiting, according to my opinion, its value and exploitation potential. In addition, it is stated (in p.13) that “the model developed is more accurate than existing methods”. How the authors have come to this conclusion? This should be properly justified.
In the case study, it is not clear to me how several of the values were determined (e.g. engine power of barges, locomotives, etc.). Are they mean values of all vehicles (e.g. barges, locomotives) providing services along the selected corridor? Relevant references, if applicable, should be provided.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Send our notes to Your Reviewer report in PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is trying to a transport modes comparative index based on multicriteria evaluation system for the optimal solutions. The topic is interesting and attractive. However, the paper still needs highly major revision to improve the quality of the paper.
1.
as correlation coefficient, for the transport chain could be between 0,95 and 1,0,
why is not considered in formulas transportation time function（T）and energy consumption function (E)? Energy consumption function(E) should be:
. Lack of explanation of and in formulas transportation time function（T）and energy consumption function (E). How is the coefficient 0.5 determined in formulas, and what is it based on?
2. The sentence “Similarly, inland water way transport mode could be used from seaport point up to inland waterway ships loading/unloading place and road transport could be used from inland waterway transport loading place to final destination as last mile destination” is incorrect. Actually, inland waterway ships loading/unloading place should be and inland waterway transport loading place should be .
3. Formulas (9-15) are similar to the formulas used in paper “LNG Bunkering Stations Location Optimization on Basis Graph Theory”. The explanation of the formulas (11, 12, 13, 14) of this paper in detail is needed.
4. There is an error in the case study, for example, should be 330 in matrix. How are the data in matrix , , obtained? Can you choose one of the matrices, and describe the data source and calculation process of the matrix in detail in the text?
5. The discussion and analysis of the "last mile" is missing so as to the result isn’t convinced.
6. The writing and language should be significantly improved, for example, “About 80 % of the 50 cargo in the World is transported by sea transport within different regions [1].” Why “World” with capitalizing the first word? “and from point v3 to point v4 road transport could be used as „last mile destination“.” ， “from inland waterway transport loading place v6 to final destination v4 as „last mile destination“.” and“Keywords: 1; connection to sea ports, 2; energy consumption, transport modes; 3; optimal transportation solutions; 4; alternative fuels; 5; transport mode comparative index” Why is the use of punctuation not uniform?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Send our notes to Your Reviewer report in PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1.
The writing style should be improved more and more to an academic or scientific paper. Especially the academic contribution of this paper is not clear. For example, the title of this paper is quite general. The reviewer cannot understand the role of chapter 2 because this chapter explains the general knowledge of transportation. The authors should specify the main issue and how to tackle this issue in this paper more clearly.
2.
This paper uses Google maps a lot. However, it is doubtful that it follows the guidelines for using Google maps.
3.
The reviewer cannot understand how to create Figure 3 from Reference [35].
Author Response
Send Authors Notes to Reviewer 3A in PDF format (It is Notes to Reviewer 3).Notes to Reviewer 4 is addresed to Reviewer 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for carefully considering and addressing my comments.
Although improved to a certain extent, I think the literature review part (section 2) would greatly benefit from including a table where more information would be provided on past research (e.g. approaches adopted, factors considered, etc.). The 4 paragraphs in page 7 (line 265-line 287) are too generic, according to my opinion, and the references included should be analysed in more detail. This would provide the reader a more clear understanding of where relevant research currently stands and how this paper differs.
I still fail to understand why the reference on tugboats is important to this paper (not explained in the authors’ responses), while sources for case study data are still not reported (it is mentioned in page 16 “based on data from the analysis” – which analysis? Is there a reference that can be included?).
Although several editing mistakes have been corrected, there still exist in the text (e.g. 3rd column in Table 3).
Author Response
Authors responce to Reviewer 2 (report 2) remarks and suggestions in PDF format submited
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is trying to a transport modes comparative index based on multicriteria evaluation system for the optimal solutions. The topic is interesting and attractive. The paper revised the questions raised last time. However, the paper still needs some revision to improve the quality of the paper.
1、Energy consumption function(E) should be:
.
2、Lack of explanation of and in formulas transportation time function（T）and energy consumption function (E). What are indicators and?
3. The sentence “For the graph tree covering transport corridors network, which is explained at Figure 5, mentioned matrix in formula (9) can be calculated as follows” is incorrect. Actually，“formula (9)” should be“formula （11）”.
4. The transport mode comparative index ( ) is:
The sentence “where the weighting factor for transport costs is taken 0.5, the weighting factor for transport time is taken 0.3 and the weighting factor for energy consumption is taken 0.2, is presented in Figure 7.” is incorrect. Its weight factor should include , , and .
5. The writing and language should be significantly improved.
For example, “The paper aims to present develop a scientifically based assessment methods developed for optimal transportation between regions, ports and consignees/shippers that are often located long distances between each other，…”The word “method” should use the singular form.
“and from point v3 to point v4 road transport could be used as „last mile destination“.” ， “from inland waterway transport loading place v6 to final destination v4 as „last mile destination“.” The use of punctuation in the sentence is wrong.
“Keywords: 1; connection to sea ports, 2; energy consumption, transport modes; 3; optimal transportation solutions; 4; alternative fuels; 5; transport mode comparative index” Why is the use of punctuation not uniform?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Authors respond to Reviewer 3 (Report 2) remarks and suggestions submit in PDF format
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewer cannot agree with the authors' comment.
Firstly, the authors claim that the proposed method has generality and can apply to any case. However, if the authors want to claim this, authors have to explain why other research cannot apply to any cases and what the critical point can apply to any cases. This important point should be included in the title.
Moreover, the authors claim that they did not use Google Maps. However, the first version of this paper clearly uses Google Maps because the reviewer can see the Google logo. The second version uses less-resolution images than those used in the first version. Also, although the resolution is poor, the reviewer can see the Google logo in Fig. 2. This response was judged to be a malicious attempt to hide the Google logo intentionally.
Because of these reasons, the reviewer cannot trust the authors' response.
Author Response
Authors responds to Reviewer 4 (Report 2) remarks and suggestions submited in PDF format
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Send our responds to Reviewer 3 (Report 3) remarks in PDF format
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Reviewer thinks that the title of this paper is too general, but other issues are solved.
Author Response
Send our responds to Reviewer 4 (Report 3) in PDF format
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
