Joint Maritime Bunker Hedging and Operational Consumption Based on CVaR Optimization
Muhammad Shabir Shaharudin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Cite more quality papers
2. Please relate your work with the environment in conclusion part. The impact it has on environment can be your significant contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please revise the paper by addressing the following issues:
1. Abstract should contain the summary of whole research.
2. Problem statement and research gap should be precisely highlighted.
3. Would you please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals?
4. A detailed discussion of your results with reference to existing literature is required.
5. The conclusion is pretty generic and fails to provide any improvement in the existing knowledge base.
6. Please include some practical implications of your study findings in the conclusion.
7. References require some revisions for uniformity in pattern according to the style recommended by the Journal.
Please proof read the manuscript before submitting the revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper deals with developing a joint model that considers financial technology and the operational bunker cost efficiency. However, it is unclear for which purpose. The paper's subject is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal, but the paper's main aim and research questions should be better formulated. More detailed comments are provided below.
1. The abstract should be supplemented with the main results, conclusions, and contributions of the paper. Also, it is not clear from the abstract what the aim of the paper is. The authors state that “This paper presents a joint model to explore the optimal strategies that…”, but with what result. Which optimal strategies and for what?
2. Main results and conclusions should also be highlighted in the Introduction. In addition, the authors should clearly indicate the main motives and aims of the study and clearly formulate the research questions.
3. Although the authors gave a nice overview of used notation (line 264), it is not complete. The meaning of some letters (notation) is not explained.
4. The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature.
5. The paper does not provide any practical (managerial) or theoretical implications. The authors should discuss who can use the results obtained in this study, and for what.
6. The paper does not discuss any limitations of the study.
7. The authors did not provide any future research directions.
8. There are certain technical issues:
a) It is uncommon to have sub-headings without any text between them (e.g. between heading 3 and sub-heading 3.1). There should be at least a couple of sentences between them as the introduction to the following.
b) The authors refer to Figure 6 in line 359. They should refer to Figure 5.
c) Reference numbering is not correct. There is no reference to [4] anywhere in the main text. However, reference [4] (Zis & Cullinane, 2020) is quoted as reference [5] in the paper. Check all references. All references in the reference list must be in the main text and vice versa.
d) Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper. For example, the authors did not define "HFO". Check the rest of the abbreviations.
e) References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated).
f) Some references are missing certain elements, such as dates of last access to web pages (e.g. references [28] and [29]).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank You for an exciting and relevant Article entitled "Joint Maritime Bunker Hedging and Operational Consumption based on CVaR Optimization".
- The main question addressed by the research is how to explore the optimal strategies that take both the financial technology (bunker hedging) and the operational bunker cost efficiency (sailing speed and routing optimization under emission regulations) into account to reduce bunker costs under emission regulations in the maritime shipping industry.
- The topic is highly relevant in the field as it addresses the critical need for efficient green maritime technologies to improve the profitability and sustainability of shipping carriers. It also addresses the lack of coordination between bunker fuel prices and applicable maritime technologies under Sulphur emission regulations. This research is original as it provides a joint model to analyze the coordination of both operational bunker cost efficiency and financial risk control, which is lacking in the existing literature.
- This research adds to the subject area by presenting a joint model that considers both financial technology and operational bunker cost efficiency to reduce bunker costs under emission regulations in the maritime shipping industry. The sensitivity analysis also examines the impacts of emission regulation changes on optimal shipping routing solutions.
- The methodology used in the research is appropriate, and the risk function used for modeling expected bunker cost is the Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) methodology, which provides stability in statistical estimation. However, the authors could consider providing more details on the selection of the input parameters used in the model and additional controls that could be used to improve the robustness of the results.
- The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question posed. The research finds that the joint strategy of financial risk control and operational bunker cost efficiency is better than the two independent strategies and provides a prospect for maritime shipping into the effective decision tool of bunker cost reduction under the emission regulations.
- The references used in the research are appropriate, and they cover the relevant literature related to the topic.
- I’d like to make an additional comment regarding Figure 1: Please help the reader understand the differences between the three Options shown in this Figure, and please disclose the abbreviations in Figure 1. It’s unclear the difference between legs in Figure 2. «Illustrate bunker procurement, hedging and operational process.».
- Please remove the excessive word «are» in line 261.
Please correct the mistake in line 19 the word "weather", I suppose the correct word is "whether".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues from the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of the paper in its present form.
