Research on the Safety Evaluation Method for Quayside Container Cranes Based on the Best–Worst Method–Pythagorean Fuzzy VIKOR Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors!
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled „Research on the Safety Evaluation Method for Quayside Container Cranes Based on the BWM-Pythagorean Fuzzy VIKOR 3 Approach". It sounds like a very useful analytical tool introduction to a new field. The manuscript is worth publishing after addresses some minor and a very big problem.
Title: The title represents the full manuscript.
Abstract: The abstract summarizes the whole study greatly.
Format: The format of the paper is NOT acceptable. For me this is the main issue with the document. Besides the language, there are multiple problems with the general picture and text editing. The lines are not consistent, equations break the text, there are multiple text sizes, etc.… Please take out the equations from the text, make them uniform. Put the results oh the weights and indicators into tables and graphs. The references should be in the exact format that the guideline provides.
Introduction and literature review: The introduction and goals are properly explained, the scientific gap can be recognized, literature review is sufficiently deep and wide. The literature review is fully acceptable.
Materials and methods: I can understand the base model and the main parts, but because of the messiness of equations it is very hard to understand. The basics of the mathematics are right, I didn’t find any problems, but I’m not an expert of these kind of math/theories.
Language: The language is good and totally acceptable.
Conclusions: The conclusion is clear, the claims and proposals are proven, but it should be more visual and organized. It also should be longer, more detailed, and future driven. See guidelines.
In my opinion, the article can be accepted after a total reformatting. I attached the file for some extra guide.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for allowing me to read your manuscript addressing an approach to the scientific application of the safety evaluation method for quayside container cranes based on the BWM-Pythagorean Fuzzy VIKOR Approach.
As far as I understood from your paper, the research aims to provide theoretical research on the safety risk assessment of quayside container cranes for port enterprises and managers in practice.
The research appears to have been well-designed, and the paper was properly drafted. There are just a few points I would like to highlight to improve the manuscript. I hope your efforts in the revision of the manuscript according to my comments can make the paper more attractive to satisfy the high demands set by readers of Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417).
#Abstract:
Please also be aware that all words reflected in keywords must be previously quoted from the abstract in order of appearance. Specifically, the term “Safety Evaluation Method” should have explicitly been written in the abstract since this has been used as a keyword. Please correct this as soon as possible. Moreover, the acronym “MCDM” should be defined for the first time. The same applies to all acronyms in your paper.
#Introduction:
There is also a lack of research questions that should have been explicitly introduced in such a key subpart of the manuscript.
No further objections.
# Preliminaries:
No objections, since the general introduction to the foundational knowledge relating to the safety risk evaluation method for gantry cranes has been well explained.
#The Best-Worst Method (BWM)
No objections since the BMW is well-drafted concerning the research matter.
#Safety Risk Assessment Method for Quayside Container Cranes Based on BWM-Pythagorean Hesitant Fuzzy VIKOR Method.
No objections.
#Case Study Verification
This subpart is good. Particularly commendable is the creation of visualizations from Figure 2. However, this should be well-designed for a better appearance. For instance, the color in plots of Figure 2 does not help for a friendly reading.
Concerning Figure 2, apart from indicating the source, even if it is your own, the software (and version) for such a nice screenshot should be here noted. The same applies to all other figures from the manuscript.
#Conclusions:
This section seems a bit short for the ambitious objectives pointed out in the introduction.
You should also explain in more detail how the findings of your manuscript can help complement or support earlier works.
Please try to expand it for a better understanding of the findings from your study, and how they may provide a basis for further work.
Additionally, I suggest that a separate section should be devoted to explaining your research recommendations for future studies.
Best Regards,
The Reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn line 120 and 121, the authors write: This study proposes a safety risk evaluation method for gantry cranes based on Pythagorean hesitant fuzzy sets and the VIKOR method. I recommend adding after this sentence a link to the literature that describes the VIKOR system in detail.
Table 2 should be inserted in the text so that it is not divided into 2 pages. Page 1 and page 18. Insert it only on page 18 and move the text.
I recommend describing table 4 in more detail. What device was used to obtain the measured values in the table.
I recommend better describing the picture 2. Describe the individual parts of the picture. It's not obvious.
I recommend describing table 4 in more detail. What device was used to move the name of table 10 to the next page 24.
The article shows the high expertise of the authors in the given issue. It describes the specific complexity of methods and procedures. The article contains many tables and matrix. It is organized quite confusingly and complexly. I recommend simplifying the presentation, describing the pictures better. Also, the end of the article is too short. I recommend describing the conclusion and results in more detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper’s subject is interesting. The authors propose the safety risk assessment method for quayside container cranes based on the BWM and Pythagorean Hesitant Fuzzy VIKOR. The presentation of the paper is clear. Tables and figures complement and clarify the text. Experimental studies confirm the theoretical background. However, this work must be revised by the authors for publication. In particular, I recommend taking into consideration the following aspects:
- Why the fuzzy logic should be used for the reliability analysis What uncertainty is in the considered problem (quayside container cranes safety)? The novelty of the presented result should be indicated in more detail.
- Analysis of the problem state is not sufficient. Many reviews focus on past studies on the application of fuzzy logic in risk, safety and reliability evaluation. How did the past studies solve this problem? The list of references should be modified taking in consideration the problem of reliability engineering. For example, such studies can be interesting for the analysis:
1r. Nadjafi, M., Farsi, M., Zio, E., Mousavi, A.K., Fault trees analysis using expert opinion based on fuzzy-bathtub failure rates, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 34(6), 2018, pp. 1142–1157
2r. Yang L., Rauzy A., Epistemic space of degradation processes. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, vol.31, 2021, pp.1-25
3r. Zaitseva, E., Levashenko, V., Rabcan, J., A new method for analysis of Multi-State systems based on Multi-valued decision diagram under epistemic uncertainty, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 229, 2023, 108868
- What can you say about applications of the proposed methods for other system?
· In conclusion, the advantages (and disadvantages?) of the proposed methods should be discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
