Structure of Public Passenger Transport Lines in the Region of Prešov in Slovakia to Support the Development of an Integrated Transport System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has several grammatical errors and typos.

The methodological replicability and limitations of the research should be emphasised

Right from the abstract, the regional area is defined as the area of study, giving ample reasoning for the choice 

At the same time, it is advisable to better describe the case study analysed by emphasising the current critical aspects of the infrastructure system and transport services in the area examined, also paying particular attention to transport demand and the reasons for travel

All acronyms should be defined in extended form when they are mentioned for the first time in the text 

More commentary to accompany Figures 1 and 3 is necessary, as is the inclusion of the sources of all the images introduced in the manuscript

We recommend inserting figure 4 in high resolution, modifying the flowchart form where possible for better readability of the texts 

I think it is also useful to mention the presence/absence of areas of weak transport demand where complementary transport services such as DRT services for passengers and freight should be included. In this regard, we recommend reading the following research works

1) Alonso-González, M. J., Liu, T., Cats, O., Van Oort, N., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2018). The potential of demand-responsive transport as a complement to public transport: An assessment framework and an empirical evaluation. Transportation Research Record, 2672(8), 879-889.

2) Campisi, T., De Cet, G., Vianello, C., & Garau, C. (2024). Exploring Economic and Ethical Challenges of Implementing Demand-Responsive Transport Systems (DRT) in Italy. EUROPEAN TRANSPORT/TRANSPORT, (98).

3) Sörensen, L., Bossert, A., Jokinen, J. P., & Schlüter, J. (2021). How much flexibility does rural public transport need? -Implications from a fully flexible DRT system. Transport Policy, 100, 5-20.

More commentary is needed to accompany Figures 9-10.

It is recommended that the limitations of this research be better emphasised in the concluding section

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewers comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments. We remind you that we have tried to process all reviewers' comments and they have all been incorporated into the article.

Comments from the Reviewers:

 

Reviewer 1

The manuscript has several grammatical errors and typos.

• Thanks for the comment. All grammatical errors and typos have been removed.

The methodological replicability and limitations of the research should be emphasised

• Thank you very much for the reminder. The methodology and limitations of this research were described in the introduction section.

Right from the abstract, the regional area is defined as the area of study, giving ample reasoning for the choice 

• Thank you very much.

At the same time, it is advisable to better describe the case study analysed by emphasising the current critical aspects of the infrastructure system and transport services in the area examined, also paying particular attention to transport demand and the reasons for travel

• -Thank you for your valuable comment. This was supplemented in section 3 – Research background.

All acronyms should be defined in extended form when they are mentioned for the first time in the text 

• Thank you. After editing, all acronyms throughout the text are defined in expanded form.

More commentary to accompany Figures 1 and 3 is necessary, as is the inclusion of the sources of all the images introduced in the manuscript

• Thank you very much. This has been supplemented.

We recommend inserting figure 4 in high resolution, modifying the flowchart form where possible for better readability of the texts 

• Thank you. Figure 4 has been modified.

I think it is also useful to mention the presence/absence of areas of weak transport demand where complementary transport services such as DRT services for passengers and freight should be included. In this regard, we recommend reading the following research works

1) Alonso-González, M. J., Liu, T., Cats, O., Van Oort, N., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2018). The potential of demand-responsive transport as a complement to public transport: An assessment framework and an empirical evaluation. Transportation Research Record, 2672(8), 879-889.

2) Campisi, T., De Cet, G., Vianello, C., & Garau, C. (2024). Exploring Economic and Ethical Challenges of Implementing Demand-Responsive Transport Systems (DRT) in Italy. EUROPEAN TRANSPORT/TRANSPORT, (98).

3) Sörensen, L., Bossert, A., Jokinen, J. P., & Schlüter, J. (2021). How much flexibility does rural public transport need? -Implications from a fully flexible DRT system. Transport Policy, 100, 5-20.

• Thank you very much for the recommended literature for further study. The articles were carefully read and we summarized their ideas in section 3 – Research background and described them in our research. At the same time, we cited these articles.

More commentary is needed to accompany Figures 9-10.

• Thanks for the reminder. An additional comment was added to Figures 9 and 10 in the Results section.

It is recommended that the limitations of this research be better emphasised in the concluding section

• Thank you for your valuable comment. The limitations of our research were described in the Conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: The abstract is very concise and incomplete. Namely, to make it clearer to the readers, the authors must specify precisely the applied methods and the concrete result, i.e. the proposal of a variant of the transport service. This would make the abstract higher quality and more comprehensive.

Introduction: In addition to describing the importance of public transport for sustainable transport, the authors were not specific in describing the goal of their research (which refers to the case of the Prešov region in Slovakia). Namely, it is not clear what is the reason for proposing new routes, i.e. transport services, whether it was preceded by demand or optimization of existing transport needs, or on the other hand there is a problem that the authors want to solve with this proposal. Also, it is necessary to point out the very structure of the work by chapters through the paragraph.

Literature review: The review of the literature is very comprehensive. Still, the question arises whether any of the researchers used the AHP method that was also applied in this paper, to see the importance of its application in this area. It would be good, if it exists, to highlight the research data and indicate the possible advantages and disadvantages of this method.

Research background: Within the background of the research, in addition to the mentioned characteristics of the region, the plan of transport services, etc. it would be important for the authors to indicate the transport requirements (eg, what percentage of passengers use which type of transport) in Slovakia, given that it is not clear why a new transport service is being proposed, and in this way bring the significance of their research closer. Also, it is necessary to indicate in the legend what each point represents (by color) in Figure 3.

Methodology: The methodology is defined in a very clear way, but it is not precisely defined why the AHP method was chosen. Also, it is not clear what is in its structure in addition to criteria and sub-criteria, i.e. what are the alternatives. Also, it is not indicated on what basis the criteria/sub-criteria were determined and how the method itself is further implemented. Also, I ask the authors to write down the lines of different colors in Figure 6.

Results: On what basis was the proposal for zoning lines made? Is there any research behind it that indicates the suitability of this proposal? Also, what are the proposed lines based on? There is a lack of justification for the given proposals. In addition to the above, the authors did not indicate how they defined the weights of criteria and subcriteria. Is it a subjective method or is it based on expert opinion or something else entirely?

Discussion: The discussion is very specific and meaningful. In this part of the paper, the authors have specified the method of defining the weight of the criteria in the AHP method, which should be mentioned even in the methodology. Then, was there a discussion about the mentioned routes and transport services (variants A and B)? I believe that simulations would help a lot to determine the justification of the author's proposal.

Conclusion: The proposal for improving the conclusion refers to the definition of the existing limitations of the study and a possible proposal for further research.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewers comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments. We remind you that we have tried to process all reviewers' comments and they have all been incorporated into the article.

Comments from the Reviewers:

Reviewer 2

Abstract: The abstract is very concise and incomplete. Namely, to make it clearer to the readers, the authors must specify precisely the applied methods and the concrete result, i.e. the proposal of a variant of the transport service. This would make the abstract higher quality and mor comprehensive.

• Thank you for the constructive comment. The main used research methods and the specific result of our research were added to the Abstract.

Introduction: In addition to describing the importance of public transport for sustainable transport, the authors were not specific in describing the goal of their research (which refers to the case of the Prešov region in Slovakia). Namely, it is not clear what is the reason for proposing new routes, i.e. transport services, whether it was preceded by demand or optimization of existing transport needs, or on the other hand there is a problem that the authors want to solve with this proposal. Also, it is necessary to point out the very structure of the work by chapters through the paragraph.

• Thank you very much for your valuable comment. This has been added in the Introduction section.

Literature review: The review of the literature is very comprehensive. Still, the question arises whether any of the researchers used the AHP method that was also applied in this paper, to see the importance of its application in this area. It would be good, if it exists, to highlight the research data and indicate the possible advantages and disadvantages of this method.

• Thanks for the comment. We processed and described this comment in the Discussion section. We think this idea fits better there. Of course, we structured the literature review according to the research focus of individual authors.

Research background: Within the background of the research, in addition to the mentioned characteristics of the region, the plan of transport services, etc. it would be important for the authors to indicate the transport requirements (eg, what percentage of passengers use which type of transport) in Slovakia, given that it is not clear why a new transport service is being proposed, and in this way bring the significance of their research closer. Also, it is necessary to indicate in the legend what each point represents (by color) in Figure 3.

• Thanks for the reminder. This was supplemented in section 3 – Research background, but we remind you that we worked with available data from 2018.

Methodology: The methodology is defined in a very clear way, but it is not precisely defined why the AHP method was chosen. Also, it is not clear what is in its structure in addition to criteria and sub-criteria, i.e. what are the alternatives. Also, it is not indicated on what basis the criteria/sub-criteria were determined and how the method itself is further implemented. Also, I ask the authors to write down the lines of different colors in Figure 6.

• Thank you. All requirements have been completed in the Methodology section.

Results: On what basis was the proposal for zoning lines made? Is there any research behind it that indicates the suitability of this proposal? Also, what are the proposed lines based on? There is a lack of justification for the given proposals. In addition to the above, the authors did not indicate how they defined the weights of criteria and subcriteria. Is it a subjective method or is it based on expert opinion or something else entirely?

• Thank you. This has been supplemented. We remind you that based on the requests of other reviewers, an appendix was prepared with an extended description of the routing procedure and functional layers of public passenger transport lines.

Discussion: The discussion is very specific and meaningful. In this part of the paper, the authors have specified the method of defining the weight of the criteria in the AHP method, which should be mentioned even in the methodology. Then, was there a discussion about the mentioned routes and transport services (variants A and B)? I believe that simulations would help a lot to determine the justification of the author's proposal.

• Thank you very much for your comment. We mentioned the possibility of using simulations in solving this issue as possibilities for further research, or expanding this research in the future.

Conclusion: The proposal for improving the conclusion refers to the definition of the existing limitations of the study and a possible proposal for further research.

• Thank you very much. Research limitations and suggestions for further research have been added here.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find this material well. The structure of the manuscript is correct. A literature background is enough. The study is described clearly, and the methodology and results are understandable. Conclusions are supported by the discussion of the results. The findings will be useful for other research and regions.

In my opinion, this paper is almost ready to be published after some small corrections.

1. I suggest adding some pseudocode of used procedures (enhancing “Routing procedure and functional layers of public passenger transport lines” presented in figure 4) – as an appendix.

 

2. The placement of the selected elements of the manuscript in the specific pages should be corrected (for example the title of section 3.1 shouldn’t end page 7, table 7 shouldn’t be divided into two pages, the title of table 8 should be integrated with its body, etc.).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewers comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments. We remind you that we have tried to process all reviewers' comments and they have all been incorporated into the article.

Comments from the Reviewers:

Reviewer 3

I find this material well. The structure of the manuscript is correct. A literature background is enough. The study is described clearly, and the methodology and results are understandable. Conclusions are supported by the discussion of the results. The findings will be useful for other research and regions.

In my opinion, this paper is almost ready to be published after some small corrections.

1. I suggest adding some pseudocode of used procedures (enhancing “Routing procedure and functional layers of public passenger transport lines” presented in figure 4) – as an appendix.

• Thank you very much for the reminder. The expanding procedure for tracing the functional layers of public passenger transport lines was processed as an Appendix. Here you will find a more detailed description of our research.

2. The placement of the selected elements of the manuscript in the specific pages should be corrected (for example the title of section 3.1 shouldn’t end page 7, table 7 shouldn’t be divided into two pages, the title of table 8 should be integrated with its body, etc.).

• Thank you. After incorporating all the comments from all the reviewers, we then adjusted the structure and layout of the article so that no part exceeded the page.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript still has some typos and grammatical errors.

It is recommended to 

1)insert all acronyms in full form when they are defined for the first time in the text

2) insert map sources (google maps or openstreetmaps or similar)

3) it is advisable to insert all images in high resolution and to standardise the font of the wording in the images 

  Once this is corrected, the paper will be eligible for publication 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the next insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewers comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments.

Comments from the Reviewers:

Reviewer 1

The manuscript still has some typos and grammatical errors.

• Thank you for the reminder. All grammatical errors have been corrected. We hope it's all right now.

It is recommended to 

1)insert all acronyms in full form when they are defined for the first time in the text

- Thank you. All acronyms are explained in parentheses throughout the text.

2) insert map sources (google maps or openstreetmaps or similar)

- Thank you. This has been added to the relevant figure and also in the references.

3) it is advisable to insert all images in high resolution and to standardise the font of the wording in the images 

- Thank you for the reminder. This has been edited. We hope it's all right now.

  Once this is corrected, the paper will be eligible for publication 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language:  Minor editing of English language required.

• Thanks for the comment. The text was checked by a natove speaker and it was proofread in English.

Thank you for your valuable comments!

Best regards

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Structure of public passenger transport lines in the region to support the development of an integrated transport system

What region? It is unclear to readers.

My suggestion to the authors is to add Presov  region to the title, or Presov region in Slovakia

 

 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We sincerely thank you to review team for the next insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the reviewers comments.

We look forward to hearing from you on the revised manuscript. In the remainder of this letter, we provide detailed answers to each of the comments.

Comments from the Reviewers:

Reviewer 2

Title: Structure of public passenger transport lines in the region to support the development of an integrated transport system

What region? It is unclear to readers.

• Thanks for the comment. This is the region Prešov in Slovakia, which is comprehensively described in the article. Rather, it is the region Prešov as a whole, which is currently to become part of the integrated transport system IDS Východ.

My suggestion to the authors is to add Presov  region to the title, or Presov region in Slovakia

• Thank you for the comment. This was added to the title of the article.

 

Thank you for your valuable comments!

Best regards

Authors