Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a risk management methodology for transport infrastructure security, which consists of five distinct stages that are thoroughly described. The article is clear, relevant for the field and very comprehensive, concluding that in order to reduce the likelihood of the most dangerous risks, measures related to the prevention of traffic violations have to be taken. The process has been validated against a medium-sized town case study.

In the risk analysis and assessment stage of the proposed methodology, the paper mentions the usage of statistical data of past years. However, it provides limited information regarding the way that data is processed, as well as about the data itself. For example, are they used any machine/deep learning algorithms and/or big data frameworks and tools to analyze the data? Are this data publicly available? In addition, it is not clear how the numbers included in Table 3 are produced. The authors should address these issues in order to improve the scientific soundness of the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for constructive and useful comments. We have editted the paper. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Risk Management Methodology for Transport Infrastructure Security”, noted as infrastructures-1756761, developed a comprehensive risk framework to reduce influence of different factors that are harmful to road safety. A case study of a small town was conducted to validate the developed risk management algorithm.

This manuscript needs to be revised and improved in the following aspects:

------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2: Literature review: the literature review in this manuscript is excessively extensive from Page 2 to Page 5, almost 4 pages with a total 17 pages manuscript. Besides, the motivation of the authors proposing their methodology is relatively short with one sentence in Line 242 to 243, without diving deep into the limitations of their extensive literature review. I suggest the authors reduce the length of their literature review and extend their motivation of new methodology development, to give a clearer background of the authors’ research in this manuscript.

------------------------------------------------------------

Line 272: “bow-tie analysis”. Further elaboration and relative citations would be helpful for this critical analysis method.

------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: there should be a connection between the cell “i=i+1” and “Are all factors considered?” Also, what index (criteria) is used to separate the significant and insignificant factor?

Figure 5: Source.

Figure 3, 4, 6: Improve the quality like resolution of these figures.

------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3: For the probability, consequence, and risk levels, do the authors generate the numbers based on their own judgement or other ground-truth sources? How do the authors validate these number scoring?

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Reference styles need to be corrected and unified, especially the citation of websites.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for constructive and useful comments. We have editted the paper. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of my comments were addressed. I have no further comments.