Digital Governance Approach to the Spanish Port System: Proposal for a Port

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments to the Authors

Journal: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering

Manuscript ID: JMSE-2085403-v1

Title: Digital Governance Approach to The Spanish Port System: Proposal for a Port

Authors: Cristina Gómez Díaz1, Nicoletta González-Cancelas, Alberto Camarero Orive, and Francisco Soler Flores 

1. This manuscript proposed the main objective of this study is to carry out an in-depth analysis of the Digital Governance approach to the Spanish Port System. This manuscript seems apparently make sense only for a business proposal only.

2. These two methods of Business Observation Tool (BOT) and SWOT matrix are used to identify how the study environment is doing and to be able to identify those indicators that have the potential to make, more detailed information to explain what is needed for these two methods. 

3. This manuscript lacks scientific analysis with more figures and tables for readers to understand easier. 

4. References are less enough to stand for this description, more references and metrologies are needed for surveying this topic.

5. On page 14, line 362, Conclusions: Finally, to conclude that the Spanish ports must move towards becoming more digital ports, because new technologies are constantly being invested in and the ports must take advantage of them and gain an edge with them, reaching a series of goals, in short, they must aspire to be more: More innovative; More agile; More connected; More collaborative; More flexible; More open. Readers will not be satisfied with the results that can be imagined without analysis and research jobs.

6. The authors have not answered all my questions.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments which have improved the paper.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

While the overall quality of this paper is improved, I still think this paper needs further revision. One major point is that some of the paragraphes are very short and need to joint up with the following sentences. On the other hand, the whole paper reads like a governmental report rather than a research paper and this should be fixed.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments which have improved the paper.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper has some good objective but it is not well prepared i think.. many coloured texts and highlighted.. methodology is not clear... the data is not provided ... the illustration in many cases are missed like the impact of such influential factors mentioned here.

the abstract and conclusion can be more informative

figures quality is very low

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments which have improved the paper.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments on the author

 

Publication: Journal of Ocean Science and Engineering

 

Manuscript number: JMSE-2085403-v2

 

Title: A Digital Governance Approach to the Spanish Port System: Port Proposals

 

By Cristina Gómez Díaz1, Nicoletta González-Cancelas, Alberto Camarero Orive and Francisco Soler Flores

 

1. This manuscript proposes that the main goal of this study is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the digital therapeutic approach of the Spanish mouth system. This manuscript appears to be only commercially available.

 

The authors have not made detailed revisions to this manuscript.

 

2. Business observation tool (BOT) and swot matrix how to do it in the environment

 

The author did not explain the Business Observation Tool (BOT), the SWOT matrix is an appropriate method for the detailed revision of this article to enter into the revision.

 

3. This article lacks a step-by-step scientific analysis, and more diagrams make it easier for readers to understand. The authors did not revise this manuscript in detail and compared it with more diagrams.

 

4. References are insufficient to support this description, more references and calculations are needed to investigate this topic. The author has not improved.

 

5. Page 14, line 362, conclusion: Finally, come to, come to: they are: more more more more connected; more collaborative; more flexible; more open open no research research work research readers Would not be thrilled with the conclusions of this manuscript. The author has not improved.

 

6. The manuscript still looks like a proposal. The authors did not revise the reviewers' suggestions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments which have improved the article. Please find enclosed the replies to the comments.
Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

can be accepted

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments which have improved the article. Please find enclosed the replies to the comments.
Thank you very much

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Authors

Journal: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering

Manuscript ID: JMSE-2085403-v1

Title: Digital Governance Approach to The Spanish Port System: Proposal for a Port

Authors: Cristina Gómez Díaz1, Nicoletta González-Cancelas, Alberto Camarero Orive, and Francisco Soler Flores

1. This manuscript proposed the main objective of this study is to carry out an in-depth analysis of the Digital Governance approach to the Spanish Port System. This manuscript seems apparently make sense only for a business proposal only.

2. These two methods of Business Observation Tool (BOT) and SWOT matrix are used to identify how the study environment is doing and to be able to identify those indicators that have the potential to make, more detailed information to explain what is needed for these two methods.

3. This manuscript lacks scientific analysis with more figures and tables for readers to understand easier.

4. References are less enough to stand for this description, more references and metrologies are needed for surveying this topic.

5. On page 14, line 362, Conclusions: Finally, to conclude that the Spanish ports must move towards becoming more digital ports, because new technologies are constantly being invested in and the ports must take advantage of them and gain an advantage with them, reaching a series of goals, in short, they must aspire to be more: More innovative; More agile; More connected; More collaborative; More flexible; More open. Readers will be not satisfied with the results that can be imagined without analysis and research jobs.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title of this article start with “digital governance approach” which is elaborated section 2.2 in detail, however, the remainder part of this article mainly analyzed the most significant indicators of developing a more digitally interconnected port rather than the digital governance approach.

2. In section 1, the aiming of this is research is determined by the last sentence, while section 3 showed the analysis result and emphasized the trends and necessity of digital transformation in port without showing adequate conclusion to support the purpose of this research. Since the comparison of present situation between the port in Spanish and other places are conducted, is it possible to add more analyzation taking into account the real condition of port in Spain?

3. A full-scale of the features of port system are arranged in section 2, however, there lacks some description of the relationship (or sequence) of these features. Taking section 2.1 as an example, the first paragraph introduced the important role port played in logistics and social development, then advantages of digitalization in logistics and maritime industry is described in paragraph 2 and 3 separately, meanwhile, paragraph 4 stated the urgent needs of digitalization in port. Each viewpoint make sense but they didn’t constitute this section as a whole. The relation of logistics, maritime industry as well as the import role the port played among them is not clarified.

4. Section 2.2 given the definition of digital governance but some of the characteristics didn’t serve as the background of in the remainder of the article, especially the digital empowerment process consisting of 9 items.

5. The 8 characteristics of smart governance put forward in section 2.3 lack of literature support.

6. Real-world cases or literatures are highly suggested to be supplemented in order to support the idea proposed in section 2.4, since they are declared as “current status at an international level”.

7. Section 2.4 responded to some viewpoints proposed in section 2.3, the relations between theses response seem too weak.

8. Section 3.3 gave a full name of “SWOT”, the word “opportunities” is duplicated.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper addresses a very interesting new development concerning digital governance approach in the Spanish port system. The paper needs further improvement before it is acceptable for publication. Detailed comments are provided as the following:

1.      The whole paper reads like a governmental report rather than an academic paper. Some paragraphs are very short and need to combine with other paragraphs.

2.      1. Introduction, at the end of this section, you need to provide the overall structure of this paper.

3.      P.2, “Ports have always played a key role in social development and are therefore a basic element in the economic development of those countries that have them and are also in a strategic position in the world.” This reference is highly relevant and should be cited: “Port Social and Culture Survey in the South West of England”, Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, (2011).

4.      P.3, what is port 4.0? Needs further explanation.

5. References are quite limited. The following references should be cited: 1. “Port Governance in the South West of England—A Comparative Assessment”, Journal of Cambridge Studies, Vol.4 No.2 (2009);2. “Maritime Clusters—What Can be Learnt from the South West of England”, Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 54, (2011);3. Brexit and its Impact on the Co-Operation Along with the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road— Assessment from Port Governance”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 9, (2022);4.“Good Ocean Governance”, Ocean Yearbook, Vol. 23 (2009).