Comprehensive Evaluation of Marine Ship Fires Risk Based on Fuzzy Broad Learning System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The selected topic for this paper is intriguing, but there is a lack of some crucial elements of a scientific study. Firstly, the title of the paper does not specify whether the research focuses on maritime or inland waterway ships. Clarifying this information would enhance the clarity and scope of the study.

One crucial aspect that is missing from the paper is a methodology section, which should provide a detailed description of the methods used, including the use of a risk matrix. It would be beneficial for the authors to explain why they chose to employ a risk matrix and provide insights into the specific criteria and considerations involved. Additionally, the authors should address the reason for using the colour blue in the risk matrix, as this is very strange for me, I have never seen use of a blue colour for risk evaluation before. Is such a risk acceptable?  

Furthermore, despite the paper being extensive, it is based on a relatively small number of scientific sources. Only 21 scientific sources may raise concerns regarding the comprehensiveness and robustness of the research.

Lastly, the paper lacks a traditional discussion of the results. A comprehensive discussion section is vital for presenting and interpreting the findings, comparing them with existing literature, and addressing any limitations or potential areas for future research.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors propose a Fuzzy Broad Learning System (FBLS) to classify risk levels of ship fire. The research topic is interesting and worth investigating. The manuscript is well-organized and well-written. The obtained results from two practical examples using an expert dataset and a real-life case respectively, show the effectiveness (in terms of MAE, MSE and RMSE) of the authors’ model in comparison with two existing models (Fuzzy SVM and Fuzzy BPNN). 

 

My remarks are as follows:

1. In the “Abstract” and “Introduction” sections, novelty and contribution parts should be extended.

2. In “2. Establishment of evaluation indicators for ship fires”, some fragments can be considered common knowledge and could be omitted, for example, AHP description and application on p. 5 and p. 7 respectively.

3. At the end of “5. Risk evaluation of actual cases of ship fires” section, a short discussion must be added.

In this part, a comparison with results obtained from previous similar studies must be added.

4. The conclusions section should be enchanced.

 

Technical remarks:

1. Figure 2: Font size should be increased. Please expand the diagram so that it occupies the entire width of the page.

2. Figure 4 is a repetition of Figure 2 and could be omitted. The same is valid for Figure 6 (FBLS training stage) and Figure 7.

3. Some abbreviations have not been defined (for example p. 3: CFD, IMO, ISM; p. 4: SOLAS).

4. p. 5: Variable “n” in Eq. (1) is undefined. In Eq. (5), “(A\omega)i” is undefined.

5. Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 11: The real numbers as labels/marks on axis x should be omitted. The meaning of black squares is unclear.

6. Figure 10 should be commented.

7. p. 18: Why does vector-row “Input” consist of 16 elements?

8. Please, include some details about your software implementation (development environment, programming language, libraries used). 

9. Link to the program code could be enclosed.

10. Link to the dataset is missing.

The quality of English language is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors still did not add the section Discussion, only prolonged the Conclusion section, but if this is not problem for the journal, I agree with publishing.

English, grammar and syntax can be improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of jmse-2454001_R1 “Comprehensive Evaluation of Marine Ship Fires Risk Based on Fuzzy Broad Learning System” has been considerably improved.

In my opinion, the manuscript meets the requirements of MDPI Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

My recommendation is “Accept for publication”.