Next Article in Journal
Incidence of Postoperative Pneumonia and Oral Microbiome for Patients with Cancer Operation
Next Article in Special Issue
Cruise Industry Trends and Cruise Ships’ Navigational Practices in the Central and South Part of the Adriatic East Coast Affecting Navigational Safety and Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
Classification of Event-Related Potentials with Regularized Spatiotemporal LCMV Beamforming
Previous Article in Special Issue
Green Shipping—Multifunctional Marine Scrubbers for Emission Control: Silencing Effect
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Hydrogen vs. Batteries: Comparative Safety Assessments for a High-Speed Passenger Ferry

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(6), 2919; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12062919
by Foivos Mylonopoulos, Evangelos Boulougouris *, Nikoletta L. Trivyza, Alexandros Priftis, Michail Cheliotis, Haibin Wang and Guangyu Shi
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(6), 2919; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12062919
Submission received: 9 February 2022 / Revised: 4 March 2022 / Accepted: 10 March 2022 / Published: 12 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript according to the referees’ comments. In my opinion, this manuscript could be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences.

- However, it is still necessary to modify the reference format.

Author Response

Manuscript No.: applsci-1611811

Title: Comparative Safety Assessments for a High-Speed Passenger Ferry

Response to Reviewers

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful and detailed comments. The text in red font denotes the changes made to reflect the amendments stemming from the reviewer's proposals.

Reviewer’s 1# comment

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript according to the referees’ comments. In my opinion, this manuscript could be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences.

- However, it is still necessary to modify the reference format.

Response:

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment and amendments have been made to the reference section, based on Applied Sciences Journal guidelines, to address the reviewer’s comment.

  1. All the commas ‘’ , ‘’ between the name of the authors have been replaced with semi column ‘’; ’’
  2. The Year of publication has been placed after the Journal name (and highlighted with bold) and before the volume (issue) and pagination.

e.g. Sarı, A.; Sulukan, E.; Özkan, D.; Sıdkı Uyar, T. Environmental impact assessment of hydrogen-based auxiliary power system onboard. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46(57), 29680–29693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.05.150

  1. Pagination has been included in all scientific articles in case it was missing.
  2. The symbol & has been removed from the last two author names
  3. Website references have been fixed based on the following format: Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year),

e.g. Comsol, Meeting the Challenges of Battery Design with Modeling and Simulation. IEEE Spectrum. Available online: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/meeting-the-challenges-of-battery-design-with-modeling-and-simulation, (accessed on 15 September 2021)

  1. Conference papers have also been properly fixed based on the guidelines: Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference (Day Month Year),

e.g. Boulougouris, E.; Papanikolaou, A.; Dahle, M.; Tolo, E.; Yan, X.K.; Jürgenhake, C.; Seidenberg, T.; Sachs, C.; Brown, C.; Jenset, F. Implementation of Zero Emission Fast Shortsea Shipping. In Proceedings of SNAME Maritime Convention, Rhode Island, USA, (28 October 2021), https://doi.org/10.5957/SMC-2021-030

Reviewer 2 Report

The work entitled "Hydrogen vs Batteries: Comparative Safety Assessments for a High Speed Passenger Ferry" is a very interesting and insightful manuscript. The work focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by using alternative fuels in maritime transport. However, I have a few comments:
1. There is no table with detailed fuel parameters
2. Lack of technical data of the engine
3. The applied diagrams are not legible
4. The presented description of the analyzes performed is hardly understandable for the reader
5. The tables presented in the "discussion of results" section are too extensive, in this version they should not appear in the manuscript
6. The discussion of the results should also be referred to as literature
7. Font color
8. No specific conclusions, they are not transparent in this work

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop