Application of Rough Set Theory and Bow-Tie Analysis to Maritime Safety Analysis Management: A Case Study of Taiwan Ship Collision Incidents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a good article, mainly because of the case study (real data). I want to congratulate the authors for this work, but, in order for it to be published, I kindly ask the authors to consider the following:
1) Usually, the words that appear in the title and the words that appear in the abstract are not used as keywords. Be creative please. For example: “Maritime data analysis”.
2) For the benefit of the reader, could you in the introduction add a table that includes the most important contributions of the paper?
3) Table 1 has numbers. Please, align numbers to the right. Also, please use a Table for the content in lines 142-161.
4) Line 81 of the pdf: "Figure1". It should be: "Figure 1". Line 105: “COVID-19however”. Line 493: “the probability of s ship collision”. There are typos in the paper. Please fix them.
5) I recommend authors use a flow diagram that graphically illustrates the proposed methodology (step by step) in Section 2. Improve the writing of the methodology. Besides, use a Table for the rules.
6) I don't like the presentation (Section 2.3) of the mathematical component. Are the authors using LaTeX? Improve explanation.
7) Use a Table to present the results from Section 3. This section is very confusing to read. Please do this for the benefit of the reader.
8) The paper has many acronyms, group them in a Table please.
9) Have the authors considered creating a package or library that facilitates the computations so that other researchers can analyze their data? Comment this in the article, please.
10) This is not mandatory: Including an example with simulated data (a large instance) would improve the quality of the work.
I kindly ask the authors to seriously consider the above issues. To publish a work it is not enough to have a good proposal. The presentation and writing of the proposal is extremely important. I believe that if the authors follow these recommendations, the paper will be ready for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
This is a good article, mainly because of the case study (real data). I want to congratulate the authors for this work, but, in order for it to be published, I kindly ask the authors to consider the following:
Comment#1: Usually, the words that appear in the title and the words that appear in the abstract are not used as keywords. Be creative please. For example: “Maritime data analysis”.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the keywords. (L27)
Comment#2: For the benefit of the reader, could you in the introduction add a table that includes the most important contributions of the paper?
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have provided the most important contributions of the paper in section 4.
Comment#3: Table 1 has numbers. Please, align numbers to the right. Also, please use a Table for the content in lines 142-161.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. As requested by one reviewer, Table 1 has been removed. Also, we have added a Table to replace the content in lines 142-161 (Table 4).
Comment#4: Line 81 of the pdf: "Figure1". It should be: "Figure 1". Line105: “COVID-19however”. Line 493: “the probability of s ship collision”. There are typos in the paper. Please fix them.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have corrected the typos in the manuscript. (L97, L98, L476)
Comment#5: I recommend authors use a flow diagram that graphically illustrates the proposed methodology (step by step) in Section 2. Improve the writing of the methodology. Besides, use a Table for the rules.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added a flow diagram of the research (Figure 2). Besides, we have added a Table for the rules (Table 6).
Comment#6: I don't like the presentation (Section 2.3) of the mathematical component. Are the authors using LaTeX? Improve explanation.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The journal of Applied Sciences encouraged to use the Microsoft Word or LaTeX template to prepare the manuscript. So that, we used the Microsoft Word template to prepare the manuscript. We have revised the line spacing of the mathematical component to make them more readable. (L194-L214)
Comment#7: Use a Table to present the results from Section 3. This section is very confusing to read. Please do this for the benefit of the reader.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added a Table for the rules. (Table 6)
Comment#8: The paper has many acronyms, group them in a Table please.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added a Table for the acronyms. (Appendix A)
Comment#9: Have the authors considered creating a package or library that facilitates the computations so that other researchers can analyze their data? Comment this in the article, please.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. Indeed, a software package covering the integrated risk assessment framework can be beneficial. So we have added the suggestion in the future research. (L455-456)
Comment#10: This is not mandatory: Including an example with simulated data (a large instance) would improve the quality of the work.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. This study is based on qualitative risk assessment methods of RST and BTA. The main “data source” is from the experience and expertise of the decision-making group, not any quantitative data. So we are not able to provide an example with simulated data.
Reviewer 2 Report
Your manuscript with the topic of Application of Rough Set Theory and Bow-Tie Analysis to Maritime Safety Analysis Management is well received. In general, authors approach is well worthy.
However, basic set-up of the paper is inadequate, to arranged as below.
Also, the list of critical issues is presented which should be clarified in order to support your discussion and conclusion, i.e. to validate the results
1. Introduction- placing Table 1 and fig 1 is not usual style how to begin sci paper. First of all, they are publicly available and there is no need to duplicate them. Recommendation is to remove them and in few sentences describe the problem in hand
2. Introduction should be ended with clear and precise study aim/s stated. Currently it is too vague and general.
3. Following the Introduction, new section should be added; e.g. Previous research or Theoretical background where the summary of previous research and their findings should be stated. I think that part of subsection 2.5 belongs there
4. line 114: "decision-making group" should be described in detail, background, experience etc. i.e. current subsection 2.2. Establishment of decision-making group should be 2.1 .... I hope that the group was formed first, then the factors were established... chronology of events should be followed! the rest of the text should be organized as suggested
5. line 120-121: "We performed literature review based on ship collision incidents and summarized 29 risk factors". Suggestion, phrase "We" should be replaced by word - Authors. Also, methodology of factor Summarization should be explained better; how/why, methodology, software or?!
6. Table 2. Summary of initial risk factors of ship collision- in this table initial risk factors were examined. In line with proposed time frame (2011-2021) some of the references provided are out dated, such as: [6, 22, 25, 29, 30], i.e. studies were done before stated period. Numerous issues were updated by the IMO or other relevant bodies and some changes were noted. Therefore, they should be removed and updated sources provided. If you consider them as important, new section 2 is appropriate place. Also, I'm surprised that Company management factor (e.g. Time/commercial pressure....) or shipboard organizational factors (e.g. fatigue due to/or low manning, low level of supervision by the Master... ) were not considered, indicating that literature review is inadequate. Pls verify and elaborate
Suggested reading:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2022.2059718
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10091265
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304619869575
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0153-4
7. As stated in previous comments, references for all mentioned factors should be verified/updated. For example, for A14, consider: https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v07.n01.005 ; for A15, B1, B2, B3 consider : annual overviews from EMSA: https://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/reports/item/4867-annual-overview-of-marine-casualties-and-incidents-2021.html (or older for stated period)
8. lines 142 - 162: the criteria (all) established/presented should be elaborated further, e.g. "The measurement scales were divided into high relevance...", which scales ?with my wildest imagination can't reach how you manage this?! same problem is applicable to all stated criteria...
9. same issue is contained in the lines 366-422 for preventive measures. Explanation or sources should be provided to support stated
10. line 173; "The RST was proposed by a Polish scholar, Pawlak, in 1982" ... source should be provided in the brackets
Once the stated issues are resolved, the quality manuscript will be judged again
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Your manuscript with the topic of Application of Rough Set Theory and Bow-Tie Analysis to Maritime Safety Analysis Management is well received. In general, authors approach is well worthy.
However, basic set-up of the paper is inadequate, to arranged as below.
Also, the list of critical issues is presented which should be clarified in order to support your discussion and conclusion, i.e.to validate the results
Comment#1: Introduction- placing Table 1 and fig 1 is not usual style how to begin sci paper. First of all, they are publicly available and there is no need to duplicate them. Recommendation is to remove them and in few sentences describe the problem in hand
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have removed Table 1 and Figure 1 in the original manuscript.
Comment#2: Introduction should be ended with clear and precise study aim/s stated. Currently it is too vague and general.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the statements at the end of Section 1. (L105-L131).
Comment#3: Following the Introduction, new section should be added; e.g. Previous research or Theoretical background where the summary of previous research and their findings should be stated. I think that part of subsection 2.5 belongs there
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. Instead of adding a new subsection in section 2, we have summarized the previous studies and theoretical background at the end of section 1. (L112-L131)
Comment#4: line 114: "decision-making group" should be described in detail, background, experience etc. i.e. current subsection 2.2. Establishment of decision-making group should be 2.1 .... I hope that the group was formed first, then the factors were established... chronology of events should be followed! the rest of the text should be organized as suggested.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added a Table to describe the background of the decision-making group (Table 2). We have modified the sequence of subsection 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 as suggested.
Comment#5: line 120-121: "We performed literature review based on ship collision incidents and summarized 29 risk factors". Suggestion, phrase "We" should be replaced by word - Authors. Also, methodology of factor Summarization should be explained better; how/why, methodology, software or?!
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have changed the subject “We” to “The authors” as suggested. The selection of risk factors is mainly based on literature review. Therefore Table 3 summarizes the relevant references for each factor.
Comment#6: Table 2. Summary of initial risk factors of ship collision- in this table initial risk factors were examined. In line with proposed time frame (2011-2021) some of the references provided are outdated, such as: [6, 22, 25, 29, 30], i.e. studies were done before stated period. Numerous issues were updated by the IMO or other relevant bodies and some changes were noted. Therefore, they should be removed and updated sources provided. If you consider them as important, new section 2 is appropriate place. Also, I'm surprised that Company management factor (e.g. Time/commercial pressure....) or shipboard organizational factors (e.g. fatigue due to/or low manning, low level of supervision by the Master... ) were not considered, indicating that literature review is inadequate. Pls verify and elaborate Suggested reading:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2022.2059718
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10091265
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304619869575
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0153-4
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The study did not use statistic methods for risk analyses. The data collected from 2011-2021 is to highlight the fact that ship collision is the most serious maritime incident in Taiwan. Some older literatures are still worth of reference since they are classic studies for risk identification. We have updated the references in Table 2 by adding more new literatures. Some of the risk factors in this study should be able to cover the recommended factors, such as company management or shipboard organization. For example, the risk factor A10 unwillingness to avoidance can be used as a surrogate for time/commercial pressure, and A1~A7 are related to fatigue due to improper shipboard organization.
Comment#7: As stated in previous comments, references for all mentioned factors should be verified/updated. For example, for A14, consider: https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v07.n01.005 ; for A15, B1,B2, B3 consider : annual overviews from EMSA:https://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/reports/item/4867-annual-overview-of-marine-casualties-and-incidents-2021.html(or older for stated period)
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the Table 3 by adding several new appropriate references.
Comment#8: lines 142 - 162: the criteria (all) established/presented should be elaborated further, e.g. "The measurement scales were divided into high relevance...", which scales ?with my wildest imagination can't reach how you manage this?! same problem is applicable to all stated criteria...
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The selection criteria of risk factors in RST are based on the experts’ experience. Thus, the study adopted a 3-point rating scale to achieve high levels of consistency in the decision-making group. We have added one sentence to explain the configuration. (L160-L161)
Comment#9: same issue is contained in the lines 366-422 for preventive measures. Explanation or sources should be provided to support stated.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added the related references for some of the preventive measures which were not supported by any reference. (L333-L391)
Comment#10: line 173; "The RST was proposed by a Polish scholar, Pawlak, in 1982" ... source should be provided in the brackets.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added the source of reference in the brackets as requested. (L174)
Reviewer 3 Report
Major correction is needed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
Comment#1: The abstract should contain the following components. Please revise this section.
- 1-2 sentence- Aim and importance of the study
- 1-2 sentence- Materials and method
- 1-2 sentence- findings
- 1-2 sentence- conclusion and recommendations, future research.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have extensively revised the abstract as suggested. (L14-L26)
Comment#2: Please give a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript. Flow of the introduction section should be as follows respectively:
- Background information
- Research problem
- Theoretical framework
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the introduction by adding 4 paragraphs for better introduction of this study. (L105-L131)
Comment#3: In order for the researcher to reveal the gap existing in these field and to present this contribution to science, the relevant literature should be prepared completely. What is the contribution of the article in question to science, what is the importance of this article? What research gap has it filled?
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the statements in the discussion and conclusion sections, and added the relevant literatures in the discussion to address the issue. (L402-L404, L458-L463)
Comment#4: References to the current literature of 2021 and 2022 articles and studies with common methodology should be included in the introduction on this subject. Please take an attention of this references with applying your research areas and relevant science which is indexed in WOS.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added several recent literatures of 2021 and 2022 which are related to the proposed methodologies in section 1. (L105-L131)
Comment#5: First part of introduction is needed to refer references. Please take an attention to this part and cited references. There have been a number of same types of studies earlier as well on the published literature. In my opinion, to get some new knowledge on this topic a much more detail analysis of the root causes of the accidents is needed.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have cited more literatures to address the need for a comprehensive evaluation of different aspects of ship collision risk in the introduction. (L105-L131)
Comment#6: Research design, which is the framework of the research methods and techniques chosen by a researcher, should be presented and detailed.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added a flow diagram of the research and explanations in the beginning of Methodologies section (Figure 2).
Comment#7: The authors need to discuss potential accident scenarios and then emphasize why consider collision. The decision to focus on collision should be based on the published work rather simple choice.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The reason why we select ship collision has been illustrated with the statistical data, please refer to the new added figure 1 and table 1. Also the impact of collision is so severe, as described in the introduction, that risk mitigation is needed. (L53-L58, L85-L93, L99-L102)
Comment#8: The conclusion section should be re-written mainly considering the hypothesis, key points of the findings, significance of the study, and contribution of the study to the existing literature
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. Most of the conclusion covers the issues raised in this comment. To make the conclusion more complete, we have added several statements, please refer to L458-L463, and L494-L498.
Comment#9: The discussion of the results as such is good. In particular, there is a lack of analysis/discussion on the sensitivity of the results in light of some choices made (e.g. expert weights, shape and numerical values of functions, etc). Sensitivity analyses are commonly used in risk analyses to discuss the robustness of the findings, so I would expect to see that in the discussion.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The sensitivity analysis is important for quantitative risk analysis. However, this study is mainly based qualitative risk assessment approaches using RST and BTA to systematically acquire the experts’ knowledge. So there is no need for sensitivity analysis.
Comment#10: There are so many other solutions for solving this problem and many authors already made many papers on this topic. Previous research can be a good way to elaborate this. I would suggest the author(s) to strengthen the conclusive remarks: currently they are quite short with only few indications of the possibility to generalize the results or the value of the achieved conclusions.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. In the introduction, we have cited several earlier studies and showed that a comprehensive evaluation is limited. So is Taiwan. (L105-L111, L124-L131) We have also strengthen our arguments regarding the possibility of generalize the results in the discussion and conclusions sections. (L451-L454, L460-463)
Comment#11: The authors should attempt to benchmark their finding with past studies.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have added the relevant references associated with the Bow-Tie analysis results to support our finding. (L326-L384)
Comment#12: The discussion section that is often considered as the most important part of a research paper is missing in the Manuscript. Therefore, the discussion section including major findings, meaning of the findings, relationship to previous studies, limitations, and suggestions for further studies should be compiled.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The manuscript do have a discussion in section 4 which covers the implications of our findings. Some of the suggested issues, e.g. major findings, and meaning of the findings, are already presented in the results section. To make the discussion more complete, we have added several statements, please refer to L402-L404, L445-L450, and L455-L456.
Comment#13: Collision and grounding accidents are classified as “very serious” ship accidents due to the severity of the damage to humans and the environment (IMO, 2019). Reducing the risk of accidents is crucial to protect human life and the environment and to minimise financial losses and negative economic impacts. Please add other marine accidents statistics related to collision accidents. For example: IMO GISIS, EMSA, EMCIP reports.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The risk assessment process of this study was based on the experience and expertise of local experts to study the regional characteristics of maritime incidents around the Taiwan water. The historical data in Taiwan is to show the local situation that ship collision is the most urgent problem. Therefore, it is not necessary for this study to analyze the global maritime accident reports. (L445-L450)
Comment#14: The authors may also briefly discuss uncertainty associated with the data and Model. The authors may consider highlighting why Bow tie is adopted.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The uncertainty associated with this study is mainly from the experts’ mental models when selecting the key factors using RST. In order to achieve high levels of consistency in the decision-making group, the study adopted a 3-point rating scale. (L160-L161)
As for the selection of Bow-Tie analysis, please refer to the new subsection 2.5. (L226-L231)
Comment#15: There have been a number of same types of studies earlier as well on the published literature. In my opinion, to get some new knowledge on this topic a much more detail analysis of the root causes of the accidents is needed.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. Indeed, that’s why we conducted an extensive review of the related literatures (section 2.2) to acquire the root causes of ship collision. We have also added several earlier literatures to address the need for an integrated risk assessment framework. (L105-L111, L124-L131)
Comment#16: I do not either understand why only 210 accidents are included in the analysis as there have be a few magnitude larger number of collision in area during the last years. Therefore, I propose that the authors collect more extensive database of collision accidents and make more detail model of the possible root causes starting from the describing the typical parameters affecting the collision accident.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. Actually the risk assessment is this study did not depend on statistical analysis but on qualitative analysis. The incident data is only used to show the fact that ship collision happen most often and that’s why we select ship collision in this study.
Comment#17: The bow-tie method is a risk assessment method that can be used to analyze and communicate risk scenarios. The method takes its name from the shape of the diagram that is created, which looks like a man's bow tie. A bow-tie diagram mainly does two elements. First, it provides a visual summary of all plausible incident scenarios that could exist around a particular hazard, in this case - associated with works in confined spaces on-board a ship. Second, it represents what an organization does to control those scenarios by identifying safety barriers.
In the literature, it is seen that there are other studies that apply the bow-tie method to maritime. Please also review these articles.
- Kaptan, M. (2021). Risk assessment of ship anchorage handling operations using the fuzzy bow-tie method. Ocean Engineering, 236, 109500.
- Domínguez, R., Gomez, C., & Cerezo, O. (2021, July). a. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 193-199). Springer, Cham.
- Sakar, C., Buber, M., Koseoglu, B., & Toz, A. C. (2022). Risk analysis for confined space accidents onboard ship using fuzzy bow-tie methodology. Ocean Engineering, 263, 112386.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The suggested articles are indeed very important and we have cited them in our article.
Reviewer 4 Report
General comments: The authors used a set of risk assessment and analysis methods to determine the representative risk factors of ship collisions, and proposed some prevention and mitigation measures. This topic is not new and a range of papers are available on the analysis of risk factors of ship collisions. So, this manuscript need consolidate research findings and novelty.
Suggestions:
1) What are the differences between the representative factors extracted by this manuscript and the results obtained in other similar papers or sources, such as Lloyd’s Marine Survey and Consulting. If exist, it is necessary to analyze these differences to highlight the novelty of this manuscript.
2) 29 risk factors in table 2 are obtained by literature review based on ship collision incidents. I want to know if all of these risk factors are appropriate for collisions accidents in Taiwan waters. Can you provide statistics results on the causes of collision accidents in history according to these risk factors in Table 2 ？
3) In section 2.3, the support and confidence of rule 1-5 should be considered and supplemented.
4) According to the context in line 235, “medium” in line 234 should be “high”.
Author Response
Reviewer #4:
The authors used a set of risk assessment and analysis methods to determine the representative risk factors of ship collisions, and proposed some prevention and mitigation measures. This topic is not new and a range of papers are available on the analysis of risk factors of ship collisions. So, this manuscript need consolidate research findings and novelty.
Comment#1: What are the differences between the representative factors extracted by this manuscript and the results obtained in other similar papers or sources, such as Lloyd’s Marine Survey and Consulting. If exist, it is necessary to analyze these differences to highlight the novelty of this manuscript.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. This study has identified 7 representative risk factors which all come from the related literatures. For example, the risk factor A6 (Personal improper operation) can be found in the citations 6,25,52,56. As mentioned in L105-L111 and L124-131 this study focus on the comprehensive risk assessment of ship collision around Taiwan water. The 7 risk factors, as a whole, cover 3 aspects of ship collision in Taiwan which should not be comparable with the global or other regional studies concentrating only on one aspect of risk.
Comment#2: 29 risk factors in table 2 are obtained by literature review based on ship collision incidents. I want to know if all of these risk factors are appropriate for collisions accidents in Taiwan waters. Can you provide statistics results on the causes of collision accidents in history according to these risk factors in Table 2 ？
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. In Taiwan, not every ship collision incident has a detailed record of the cause of occurrence, and some of the maritime investigation reports are only by written descriptions. Therefore, it is difficult for us to provide statistics results on the causes of collisions. (L124-L125) Due to the situation of lacking quantitative data, this study applied the qualitative approaches to systematically elicit the experience of the domain experts for risk assessment.
Comment#3: In section 2.3, the support and confidence of rule 1-5should be considered and supplemented.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. The decision rules acquired by RST do not have associated ‘support’ and ‘confidence’ like those of in a decision tree analysis. In this study, decision rule #3 covers the risk factors which all have a high ranking in the four selection criteria. That’s why the risk factors associated with the decision rule #3 were selected as the representative factors.
Comment#4: According to the context in line 235, “medium” in line 234should be “high”.
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We have revised the statements of rule 1-5 and added a Table for the rules (Table 6).
Reviewer 5 Report
The article is interesting. The paper focuses on the representative risk factors of ship collision incidents at Taiwan. Literature review is sufficient. The methods used in the research are adequately explained. The structure of the research complies with the academic/scientific criteria. References section needs to be checked (for example: I can’t find [35,36] in the study.)
Author Response
Reviewer #5:
The article is interesting. The paper focuses on the representative risk factors of ship collision incidents at Taiwan. Literature review is sufficient. The methods used in the research are adequately explained. The structure of the research complies with the academic/scientific criteria.
References section needs to be checked (for example: I can’t find [35,36] in the study.)
Authors’ Reply: Thanks for the comment. We appreciate your positive feedback and we have checked the reference list and corrected the mistakes.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments have been addressed correctly.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
revised manuscript is well received. However, some of the previous stated issues are not resolved.
1. Introduction - again, it's too broad and study aim is done in same style.
Considering your reply regarding the precise study aim: "We have revised the statements at the end of Section 1. (L105-L131)."
I must say again that it is too board, and will cite the journal instructions to authors: Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper."
Also, in previous comment it was suggested that Tables and figures do not belong to Introduction section, and Authors acknowledged and reply was that all is removed (see Authors reply to Comment 1 ??) . But again we have one Table and two Figures in the introduction, first figure (line 83) is not even stated/marked as such !?
Reference style for stated /used table and fig. is not as per journal requirements!
Abbreviations used in the lines 112 (RST ) and 116 (BTA) should be stated in the full meaning after the first appearance in the text, not only in the Abstract.
2. Literature/Theorethical background section should be introduced, either as separate section (no2 ) or as 1.2 and 1.3 should be study aim... to be decided and arranged as per authors opinion.
Text contained in the lines 105-123 belongs to that section because authors compare and discuss literature review about analytic tools....
3. end of line line 139: Figure 2.... check and verify the number
4. lines 217-226 : journal citation style should be used for references
5. lines 228-230: reference is required for stated
6. COVID is stated in few ocassions in the manuscript. Therefore, further explanation is required for debating about COVID pandemic and it's influence on ship collisions in Taiwan waters
7. lines 265-268 and abbreviation ROSE2: pls elaborate the stated
8. lines 275-279: Carelessness and safety awareness terms should be better elaborated. Also, term "shipman" in line 277 should be checked
9. lines 280-284: "Personal improper operation" ... should be reworded.. maybe personal competence?!
Another issue is with stated: "...whistle warnings, and use of engine and rudder were used to warn other ships to adopt avoidance procedures and prevent collisions" . Yes, whistle was and still is, used for warning other ships. But usage of engine and rudder for warning other ships to adopt avoidance procedures ??? Well, I'm an ex Captain and such practice is breaking news for me. For collision avoidance yes, but for warning ?? Pls elaborate and verify or amend stated
10. Again some strange statement contained in the lines 288-289: "....the traffic separation scheme (TSS) have different regulations due to the local sea conditions."
Usage of TSS is strictly defined by the COLREG's and it's well known fact. If there are "some other" regulations ( such as local sea conditions) for TSS usage pls state them.
Again, there is again strange statement by the authors: "Furthermore, it is difficult to ensure that the crew on the ships have sufficient knowledge of local navigation regulations, since various types of ships pass through the ports."
In order to bridge this gap all countries/ports appoint PILOT services for crews unfamiliar with local regulations, conditions..... Are the "experts" familiar with this fact ?! verify and amend
11. line 305: "steeling techniques"?? verify and amend
12. line 316: "High density of ships" .... suggestion: traffic density
13. lines 335-393 .... stated references for those factors should be moved to the previously described factors contained in the lines 275-322.
suggestion for start of section 3.1: "based on the expert opinion and literature review following factors were formed..."
14. line 368: "Crews on duty should wear buoys equipped..." ???
which crews ? pls elaborate further
15. lines 372-378... actually, Company should provide the ship/s with the related procedures according to SOLAS (ISM Code).. so, is that a novelty. Verify and amend
16.line 386: "Damage to the company’s reputation".... ??
according to the SOLAS/ISM crew should inform the Company about incident... but primary purpose is to coordinate the required actions and NOT to avoid damage company reputation as you stated!!!
17. line 391: "The crew should be responsible for compensation" ???
Come on, Really ? Check your facts pls
18. lines 401-413: "Such information can provide a comprehensive assessment for the government to achieve ship collision risk control more efficiently and reduce the incidence of ship collision incidents."
question from my side is : which government ?
well, just FYI, all stated measures by the authors are already set in numerous regulations such STCW, SOLAS, MARPOL etc on the international level.... there is nothing new in this manuscript which should support stated. Problem in general lies in fact that IMPLEMENTATION of stated measures failed .... and as a consequence, collisions occur.....
19. lines 414-418. "They also suggested to revise and strictly enforce the penalty in the Shipping Law to effectively alert substandard ships. For high-risk vessels, they recommended the inspection of ships to execute Port State Control, including strict inspections and compulsory punishments 417 [79]."
PLs note that substandard ships term should be elaborated further, and distinction between them and black listed ships should be stated. The duty of PSC is to conduct regular inspections... but reality is often different. As per punishment term, ship detention is only solution ....
20. lines 418-420: "The implementation and notification of an early warning system against bad weather conditions were recommended, as well as the establishment of a ship seaworthiness and wave resistance specifications."
pls note that navigational warnings system (including weather conditions) is in force for a long time and in various forms (navtex, weather fax, SAT-C )... so, what authors want to state; that system is out of order or that crew are not using the system?
also, further elaboration about "establishment of a ship seaworthiness and wave resistance specifications" is required!
Considering the whole Discussion section, it is unclear what authors imply ? to be revised according to precise study aim/s
Author Response
Dear reviewer#2
We sincerely thank you for providing many constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has been extensively revised according to your suggestions. Please refer to the enclosed PDF file.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors Thank you for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. Accept for revised version
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript as suggested. Although the work is not very novel, it could be a good read for readers who are interested in analysis of ship collision factors.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
All previous comments and suggestions were addressed by the authors.
