Comparative Studies of Major Sea Routes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled Comparative studies of major sea routes presents a comprehensive study with very useful content for Applied Sciences readers. In general, it evaluates the main existing routes between the main ports of world trade considering speeds, distances, fuel consumption, among others.
- I would like the novelty of the article to be highlighted.
- Mention other important routes (even if they are not evaluated), and the factors to consider in them
- Additionally, I would request a final revision of the text to correct small errors such as, for example, page 2 penultimate paragraph PANAMX type ships...
Once this review is implemented by the authors, the article can be published.
Kind regards
Author Response
Reviewer No. 1 Round 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We wish to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and remarks, which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Responses to the comments are listed below. We thank you for your interest in our research. (All changes and additions made to the article are marked in yellow)
Comment 1. I would like the novelty of the article to be highlighted.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and have highlighted the novelty of the method presented in the article.
Comment 2. Mention other important routes (even if they are not evaluated), and the factors to consider in them.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and briefly presented other possible routes and the difficulties and problems of their use.
Comment 3. Additionally, I would request a final revision of the text to correct small errors such as, for example, page 2 penultimate paragraph PANAMX type ships...
Response:. The authors thank the Reviewer for his comments, reviewed the text of the article and corrected the inaccuracies found.
Thank you again for taking the time to review our article and we hope to meet your expectations.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article presented is an interesting paper that deals with the topic of sea routes. It may be challenging for non-expert readers because it is filled with economic and mathematical graphs, diagrams, maps, and routes. However, it is an engaging topic for expert readers and presents some good points about the costs of sea transport for alternative sea routes. The authors give a methodological overview at the beginning of the article, and all the scientific methods used are appropriate. The scientific soundness of the topic in the article is good. The content of the article matches the topic of the journal, so there are no objections in this regard. However, the citation and list of references could be improved, as there is much more literature on this topic. While this is not a major objection, it could cause the rejection of the article.
Author Response
Reviewer No. 2 Round 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We wish to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and remarks, which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Responses to the comments are listed below. We thank you for your interest in our research. (All changes and additions made to the article are marked in yellow)
Comment . The article presented is an interesting paper that deals with the topic of sea routes. It may be challenging for non-expert readers because it is filled with economic and mathematical graphs, diagrams, maps, and routes. However, it is an engaging topic for expert readers and presents some good points about the costs of sea transport for alternative sea routes. The authors give a methodological overview at the beginning of the article, and all the scientific methods used are appropriate. The scientific soundness of the topic in the article is good. The content of the article matches the topic of the journal, so there are no objections in this regard. However, the citation and list of references could be improved, as there is much more literature on this topic. While this is not a major objection, it could cause the rejection of the article..
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and added the list of references and references in the text of the article.
Thank you again for taking the time to review our article and we hope to meet your expectations.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study analyzed the possible sailing routes between Southeast Asia and Europe, presents the developed methodology for the evaluation of sailing routes. The sea routes evaluation methodology is based on a comparative mathematical model that evaluates the main factors of cargo transportation by sea.
Overall the manuscript is well written. I only have some minor comments.
1. In page 5, "Rotterdam is about 9,000 nautical miles, of which about 2,500 nautical miles must be accompanied by icebreakers even in summer and winter (mandatory from the beginning of December to the end of May). " is confused.
2. Figure 2 is vague and should be re-draw
3. Can the index proposed by the authors reflect dynamic characteristics of the sea path?
Author Response
Reviewer No. 3 Round 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We wish to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and remarks, which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Responses to the comments are listed below. We thank you for your interest in our research. (All changes and additions made to the article are marked in yellow)
Comment 1. In page 5, "Rotterdam is about 9,000 nautical miles, of which about 2,500 nautical miles must be accompanied by icebreakers even in summer and winter (mandatory from the beginning of December to the end of May). " is confused.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and have corrected this sentence in the text of the article.
Comment 2. Figure 2 is vague and should be re-draw.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and have modified Figure 2
Comment 3. Can the index proposed by the authors reflect dynamic characteristics of the sea path?.
Response: The index proposed in the paper can reflect the dynamic characteristics of the sea route, because the factors are calculated separately and they can evaluate the dynamic characteristics, such as changes in the sailing path and speed due to bad weather conditions, dynamic changes due to restrictions on sailing, and so on. As stated in the "Discussions and conclusions" section, when evaluating a specific sea route, it is necessary to adapt the evaluations to specific conditions.
Thank you again for taking the time to review our article and we hope to meet your expectations.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe theme of the article has a significant practical value. The authors analyzed all sea routes, that used by ships now. The advantage of the research is an analysis of the routes in details with figures. The disadvantage is unclear a presented mathematical model and the calculation with it.
There are such notes
1. In the formulas (2) and (3) the authors used "..." to indentify the possibility of adding other variable. But when the authors used this formulas in calculation the new formulas with all using variable should be presented. (see page 15).
2. It is strongly recommended to add the table by using data for calculations The Benchmark index.
3. It would be better to present The Benchmark index calculation with different data for each route and compare it.
4. Formula (6) has written incorrectly. The variable t in the upper limit of integration and the variable of integration (t) must be different. Also, it would be better to show the variables in the functions q'_f and N_{av} in this formula.
5. It is unclear figure 11. The plot presented one line, but the title says that the speed of two ships is presented. Have the ships the same speed or the average of the speed is presented?
6. The reference [53] is not valid now. It would be better to eliminate it or change.
After correction the artticle can be published
Author Response
Reviewer No. 4 Round 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We wish to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and remarks, which have significantly helped us to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed. Responses to the comments are listed below. We thank you for your interest in our research. (All changes and additions made to the article are marked in yellow)
Comment 1. In the formulas (2) and (3) the authors used "..." to indentify the possibility of adding other variable. But when the authors used this formulas in calculation the new formulas with all using variable should be presented. (see page 15).
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's remark and abandoned the polynomial in formulas (2) and (3), and did not provide additional factors on page 15, respectively.
Comment 2. It is strongly recommended to add the table by using data for calculations The Benchmark index
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's proposal and have provided Table 1 with the main data for the calculations of the analyzed sea routes.
Comment 3. It would be better to present The Benchmark index calculation with different data for each route and compare it.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's proposal and presented the calculations of the comparative index in Table 1 and presented the analysis of the obtained comparative indices in the conclusions.
Comment 4. Formula (6) has written incorrectly. The variable t in the upper limit of integration and the variable of integration (t) must be different. Also, it would be better to show the variables in the functions q'_f and N_{av} in this formula.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and corrected formula (6). Since the relative fuel consumption and the average power of the ship's engine are constant quantities, the only variable left in this formula is time.
Comment 5. It is unclear figure 11. The plot presented one line, but the title says that the speed of two ships is presented. Have the ships the same speed or the average of the speed is presented?
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's comment and corrected Figure 11 name, indicating that this is the average speed of both ships, since both ships and icebreakers were in one convoy.
Comment 6. The reference [53] is not valid now. It would be better to eliminate it or change.
Response: The authors agree with the Reviewer's suggestion and have changed the cited source.
Thank you again for taking the time to review our article and we hope to meet your expectations.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
