Managing Maritime Container Ports’ Sustainability: A Reference Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article focuses on optimizing cargo traffic through container seaports using a sustainable port transshipment management reference model. The article title adequately reflects the content. In the abstract, the authors briefly summarize the essence of the article, describe the problem state, research methods, and results. The abstract is sufficient both for understanding the content of the research and for the volume of the text. Key words mostly correspond to the content of the article.
In the introduction, the author tries to substantiate the relevance of the topic by describing the process of searching for articles similar to the topic in various scient-metric databases. In our opinion, this is not entirely adequate, since often the same methods can be applied in different fields of activity, in addition, often the same goal can be achieved by different means. So, this rationale has no practical value in terms of a positive contribution to research. The author presented a literary review, but in our opinion, it is poorly structured, and there is also no understanding of what the authors of previous studies did, in which directions the research was carried out, to which the author refers and what is the advantage of the proposed solution. In our opinion, it is necessary to more clearly define the concept of "reference model" and a methodology that will help organize sustainable management using the model developed by the authors.
The article has a logical structure that allows you to form a clear idea of the solution of both theoretical and practical tasks performed by the author during the study. This is reflected through the names of sections and subsections. The author uses scientific and analytical methods appropriate to the subject under study. According to the results of the study, the author gives conclusions, supported by the model's scheme, however, the description of the model itself, information flows is very vague, including it is not clear how this will ensure sustainability. For example, some statements seem at least strange: “a request has been received for sustainable transshipment management at the seaport” - in our opinion, everyone is striving for this, another thing is that not everyone succeeds. In conclusion, the author should define more clearly what the study goal was and how it was achieved. In our opinion, the list of references should be expanded in order to get a more complete picture of the problem state under consideration. The article was prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors, corresponds to the topic that it researches and publishes. In our opinion, the article corresponds to the topic “improving the work of seaports” and corresponds in type to the Preliminary communication.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- In lines 72-74 you write “The so-called reference models contain a very general IT form of systems or processes implemented within a given industry in the form of presenting all their essential elements in one diagram”. However, a broader explanation of what diagram is is needed.
- In lines 165-166, you write “They are planning, organizing, leading, and 165 controlling [14] While the boundaries… ..” Is there no missing punctuation here?
- In line 169 “… something. it is a component… .. ”Are there two different sentences, isn't that a punctuation mark?
- In line 216 you write "… PESTEL, social, technological, environmental, legal)." Not sure where the brackets start?
- In line 218 "… of seaports Due to their…." Shouldn't two separate sentences be here?
- All abbreviations mentioned for the first time must be explained by full names
- Figure 1 needs to be moved closer to the reference text and only then a description / comment should be provided
- More in-depth analysis and comments are needed on how the model was constructed. More insights from the authors themselves on what would happen if one or another part of the model did not work or acted inaccurately.
- The conclusions contain a lot of unsubstantiated information, as well as unforeseen long-term research directions.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper this with some interesting issues related to the sustainability of maritime container ports. The topic is significant and definitely worth investigating. However, major modifications are necessary before its publication.
The authors emphasize the existence of many (six) stakeholders related to container port operations. In my point of view, the sustainability of operational, tactical, and strategic decisions depends on the possible consensus of the participating stakeholders. However, in many cases, these stakeholders have conflicting interests and motivations. How can these be synthesized? How can the consensus be created? The authors should dedicate at least a section to analyzing this issue. I recommend the following references in this domain: Macharis C. and Bernardini A. (2015): Reviewing the use of multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186. Duleba S. and Blahota I. (2021) Determining optimal group weights for consensus creation in AHP for three conflicting stakeholder groups by vector distance
minimization, Journal of the Operational Research Society, DOI: 10.1080/01605682.2021.1918588
Moreover, the number of references is merely 18, which is obviously few for a Sustainability paper. This number must definitely be increased to at least 30.
After the suggested modifications, the paper might be suitable for publication.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
It is recommended in abstract to summarize in a few sentences about the results obtained, rather than merely stating the fact of what has been done.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Since the journal's and also the paper's emphasis is on sustainability (even the title includes that), and one of the main conditions of running the proposed system in a long-term and sustainable manner, mentioning the consensus of the involved stakeholders cannot be avoided (all the other issues listed in the Authors' reply are connected merely indirectly to sustainability). Obviously, a thorough analysis would alter the focus of the paper so it is not necessary. However, as I recommended in my previous review a dedicated section with the proper references cited is required.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript successfully, now I recommend the acceptance in its current form.
