Evaluating the Service Capacity of Port-Centric Intermodal Transshipment Hub

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for chance to read your paper.

First noted is that paper needs English proofing, which is visible from the first sentence, "Port-Cenric intermidal transshipment hubs（PCIHTHs）are significant nodes in the global freight network and doors to national openness". What is national openness?

You chose three factors for the evaluation of indicator system.

Please describe how and why did you chose only this 3 factors?

In introduction you are describing SRIT and PCIHTH. From my point of view, collaboration description between SRIT and PCIHTH is needed. Then you are describing China's overseas trade without any introduction how and why is this important in your paper.

You mentioned paper goal, while paper novelty is missing. Please include it in your paper.

 

Chapter Literature review is confusing me. In the literature PCIHTH is well known as inland terminals, dry ports or similar. For the simplicity of reading your paper, your should think on using terms that are world known and recognize. Also, please use newest literature and expand it, since there is a lot of papers related to the field you are researching.

 

In chapter 3 you describe methods used for service capacity evaluation model. Is the weighting approach the best one for your solution. I don't think so. Please explain why did you chose this methods and what is the difference between research made by other authors and your paper. For example potential method would be appropriate for your problem.

Description of PCIHTH is in chapter 4, which is not good for readers. Please reformulate paper chapters.

 

In chapter 4.2.1Radiation Scale Capacity you mentioned all factors related to capacity radiation. My opinion is that for capacity equipment used for transshipment is more than important, so please consider to include it. It effects the capacity, costs, container reshuffel and vessel time spend at the terminal.

In chapter 5 results needs better explenation. Please explain which solution is the best and what is the difference between solution used so far and with appliance of your solution.

English proofing is needed!

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback from the editors and reviewers that we use to improve the quality of the manuscript. We proofread the manuscript based on editorial comments from Microsoft and use Word's built-in Track Changes feature to highlight any changes we make. We would like to thank the editors and reviewers again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

kind greeting

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is important and current. Unfortunately, the presented manuscript has very serious shortcomings as a scientific publication. The vocabulary used is incorrect and sometimes incomprehensible. There is a lack of understanding of the essence of the processes of both container port terminals and intermodal transport. The presented multi-criteria assessment method is interesting from the mathematical and statistical point of view, but its reference to intermodal transport and port terminals is incorrect. Main incorrections and limitations:

1. Nomenclature. Many word errors and unclear/unexplained terms, e.g. "Port-Cenric intermidal transshipment hubs（PCIHTHs???)"  [line10], "Port Type Sea-Rail Intermodal Hubs(PCIHTHs)" [line 444], PTSRHs??? [line 739],  "naturally integrate several means of transportation" [line42], etc.
It is unclear what is PCIHTHs/PTSRHs. Is it one or more container terminals in the seaport or the whole port area? It is unclear what it means "sea-rail intermodal transport (SRIT)". Is it rail-road intermodal transport connecting seaport with its hinterland or ship-rail connection? 

2. Research questions. How to understand questions in lines 73-77? Are there research questions. They are not clearly and fully explained? If one of the answers is in lines 131-136, it is too general (key technical and process explanations are necessary).

3. Essence of intermodal transport. Literature review do not include publications related to port container terminal processes and intermodal/combined transport. This has its own significance in the form of a lack of understanding of their essence and key performance factors (reliability of services, process automation, CO2 and noise emissions, energy efficiency, IT-support for customers (on-line monitoring and management, etc.). The statement about most important port hub/terminal functions [lines 205-210] are too general and do not address the current characteristics and challenges of intermodal transport.

The statement about port/terminal service "...their ambiguity and incompatibility should be considered" [line 266] is unclear and should be explained.

4.  Service Capacity Evaluation Indicators. It is not explained how these indicators were selected. Their explanation is too general and it is not clear what is calculated/provided in practice. Is 10000 tons in X3 relates to ships deadweight? How trains in X4 are calculated (per day/train relations/shuttle trains only)? Length of railway lines in X8 is calculated in entire port area on one terminal? What experts supported scoring X9-X12? etc.

 

Qualified proof reading necessary. Staring from "Port-Cenric intermidal transshipment hubs"  in the first line....

Author Response

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewer for their valuablr feedback that we used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have proofreaded manuscript according to editor’s comments and use Microsoft Word's built-in track changes function to highlight any changes we make. We would like to thank the editor and referees again for thanking the time to review our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending your paper to the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (JMSE). Your paper tackles the interesting aspect of intermodal transport.

I want you to propose some necessary improvements in the current version of your paper:

1.       Please recheck your paper for the quality of the English language. For example: cenric, intermidal, …

2.       Also, please use or UK or US version of the English language. In the UK is transport and in the US in transportation.

3.       Sometimes you used PCIHTHs, and sometimes PCIHTH. I think this needs to be level.

4.       At least one paragraph of text must be added between the title and subtitle. For example 2 and 2.1

5.       Please check some formulas. It is very distorted in PDF.

6.       The „expert consultation“ is significant to your research, but no information exists. This part needs to be tackled very profoundly and clearly.

7.       Please add future research steps in the conclusion.

 

Regards,

Dear Editor,

The authors are very good at the topic. I find this paper very valuable and important for publishing. I pointed out the critical issue in the current version of the paper.

 

Regards,

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback from the editors and reviewers that we use to improve the quality of the manuscript. We proofread the manuscript based on editorial comments from Microsoft and use Word's built-in Track Changes feature to highlight any changes we make. We would like to thank the editors and reviewers again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

kind greeting

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After english proofing, paper can be accepted!

Author Response

  Dear Reviewer:

  Thank you very much for the constructive comments which is valuable for improving the depth of the manuscript. We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. We sincerely thank the editor and reviewer for their valuable feedback that we used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have. We would like to thank the editor and referees again for thanking the time to review our manuscript.

  Best regard.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, they are not fully satisfactory. I have one important note to use the logical abbreviation PCITHS that was used at the beginning of your answer 'To explain 'PCITHS' more clearly, we have made the following corrections: ...'

No comments

Author Response

  Dear Reviewer:

  Thank you very much for the constructive comments which is valuable for improving the depth of the manuscript. We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. We sincerely thank the editor and reviewer for their valuable feedback that we used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have. We would like to thank the editor and referees again for thanking the time to review our manuscript.

  Best regard.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your new version of the paper.

You have answered all my raised questions.

Regards,

Author Response

  Dear Reviewer:

  Thank you very much for the constructive comments which is valuable for improving the depth of the manuscript. We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. We sincerely thank the editor and reviewer for their valuable feedback that we used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have. We would like to thank the editor and referees again for thanking the time to review our manuscript.

  Best regard.

Yours sincerely,

Tian Liu

E-mail: kcaco58920@whut.edu.cn