An Emergency Port Decision-Making Method for Maritime Accidents in Arctic Waters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work proposes a methodology to improve the port decision allocation in case of maritime accidents in Arctic water. In my opinion, the authors should treat:

1. Rows 170, 173: IHS or HIS?

2. Table 1. n, not i for networks nodes. The sums are done with 1<=j<=n.

3. K-means algorithm. Please specify what is the convergence condition. The new centroids are not correctly computed in step 7.

4. Eq. 5. Why is it deleted? Eq 6. who is mij? Eq 8, 9. Who are J1 and J2?

5. Row 320. Please give a short description of the comparative analyses used.

6. Row 375. The MaxETR I think should never be more than 5 days (not less).

7. Table 8. Please give a short description of how it was constructed.

8. Row 576. USA, not America.

 

 

No other issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am highly impressed with its overall quality. The paper is well-structured, using scientific and effective methods providing valuable insights.

The article presents a significant contribution to the field, addressing the urgent need for efficient emergency response systems in the challenging Arctic waters. The study's objective of revealing the emergency response relationship between emergency ports and accident-prone areas is of great importance in safeguarding maritime activities in this region.

Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution to the field of emergency response systems in Arctic waters. The comprehensive analysis, combined with the valuable insights obtained from the topological properties of the emergency port network, offers multi-attribute decision-making tools for addressing maritime accidents in this challenging environment. The findings have practical implications and can be utilized by relevant stakeholders, including emergency response teams, port authorities, and policymakers. 

While the paper excels in many aspects, one area that requires attention is the format of the references. It is essential to adhere to the appropriate citation style and formatting guidelines as per the journal's requirements. 

I would like to praise the authors for valuable contributions to the field. Addressing the formatting issue of the references will undoubtedly elevate the overall quality of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

your manuscript with the topic Emergency port decision-making method for  maritime accidents in Arctic waters is well received .

List of required changes/modifications is as follows:

- Introduction section should be short and concise, i.e., introduce the reader to the topic at hand and end with precise study aim(s). Currently, the authors mixed up the Introduction and the Literature review sections.

Therefore, my recommendation is to separate the two, i.e. Introduction should be rewritten and new section, Literature review, established.

- Line 91: "Emergency preparedness is a key factor for maritime safety...." term used is too broad, should be introduced and defined in a better manner.

- lines 125-134.... Study contributions/results  should be presented in results/discussion/conclusion section, surely not in the Introduction

- lines 143-44: "...the present study is introduced in Fig.1, which mainly consists of four steps." vague description should be avoided in the sci paper. Therefore, appropriate description of methodology used should be provided.

- line 178: "SAR responsibility....568 maritime accidents"...

For stated SAR operations, detailed analyses should be provided, i.e., how many were OSH related (Fisherman's related) and how many with ship operations.

- Following statement in Conclusion section is unclear: LINES 670-673: "Maritime accidents in Arctic waters are characterized by high suddenness and harmfulness, which makes it crucial to select an efficient emergency port to rescue in the event of a maritime accident occurring in Arctic waters."

Pls provide explanations for used study approach, considering the logic behind it.. If the accident occurs, normally, "closest" ship or SAR unit is dispatched at the scene in order to provide required level of assistance....!? as stated by the authors in section 3. Thus, what is the study novelty ?

Therefore, it is highly recommended that Introduction section contain a detailed approach, i.e., study aim, which should be rational and logical, considering the situation at hand, study aim(s) and required level of study novelty. From the manuscript provided it's hard to see any of that. Thus, in line with stated from my side, Conclusion section should be revised.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

revised manuscript was well received. Considering the previous comments I can see that they been implemented. Well done.

However, I must emphasize that authors response to comment no.6  (marked by the authors in blue) should not be addressed to me. Instead, it should be inserted into the Introduction section (in appropriate form) as these words emphasize the study novelty and all readers  should be introduced into the study purpose.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf