Rubber-Tracked Forwarders—Productivity and Cost Efficiency Potentials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have written my comments in the text for you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is relevant to the field of interest spanned by the journal readers, and the paper is original. The paper could be of general and international interest because forwarders are used more and more frequently in terrain conditions other than the ones in northern countries (for example in steep terrain conditions).

The article has a novelty character due to the fact that it tries to investigate how productivity and extraction cost of rubber-tracked forwarders are affected by variations in driving speed, and machine costs.

The research methodology is adequate and presented in detail so that it can be reproduced for other work conditions. The time elements and the calculations used in the paper are correct. Both the research organisation and the number of samples (tree stands) are clearly stated. The paper contains a high amount of data and statistical interpretation that have allowed authors to obtain representative results. The results are appropriately stated and commented.

The reference section contains representative bibliographic references of the topic approached in the paper. In the introduction these references are used as background for the presentation and justification of the topic approached and later on, they are used to support the results obtained and the discussions.

The language is clear, the paper is easy to read and understand. Hence, I think that this is a good paper and deserves publication.

However, the paper could be further improved in some points, namely:

Point 1 – For a better understanding of statistical processing, a detailed description of the way in which the statistical programming language R (R Core Team 2028) is used, would be needed – what functions, models, tests have been used?

Point 2 – References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript (see Instructions for Authors).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper unquestionably falls within the scope of the journal and the discipline of forest operations providing very interesting data findings coming from a very large data set. However, the following suggestions aim at improving the quality of the findings presentation and provide the necessary clarifications to the journal’s readership.

Generally, the English used is good, however, in some points a linguistic check should be made. Furthermore, in some cases a manuscript restructuring deems inevitable.

More specific comments:

L29: is likely to give access to enable/facilitate access

To test it that the first four figures are combined in one that does not exceed one page.

Another general comment is that the sections are not clearly divided. That is problematic many cases for example table one, figure 5, figure 6, refer to results.

Figures five and six tried to provide additional information (percentages) however the figure captions failed to explicitly described what's included. Thus, I kindly suggest the the figure captions are revised or the figures change accordingly.

L148-152: this part of the text should be changed because it's not very clear. For example: with volumes measured at the industries - what is exactly meant by that?

L163-171: while describing the ground bearing capacity classes I kindly consider that you sight Berg 1992 at the very beginning. Also, this part of text belongs to results.

Figure 6: Additional comment – no percentage symbols are included.

Page 9 – Materials and methods: You had a large dataset from big company. The existence of Dest in your calculations has to be better explained

L211: ..results in..

L216: What is your source for this equation?

L222: Please consider using USD throughout the manuscript and not selectively in parts of it. That also applies to Table 2.

L242-243: This point makes sense, but can you also provide some relevant references?

L246-248: Hard to understand. Please rephrase.

L255: …lower end …

L277-279: A verb is missing! Please rephrase L277-281!

Figures 7 and 8: Please revise the figure legends e.g. “3.4 Wheeled” could improve significantly

Since you are using R, what about combining figures 7 – 10 in one 2 x 2 figure?

Results: The visualized results have to be described!! The section should be re-organized including the figures in subchapters, where the results are described.

L326: … has been more..

L332: Figures vs figure

L339: seem to have a … or do you mean “costs”.

L355: Please pay attention: a rubber-tracked forwarder is not moderate, it is moving in moderate speed.

L357: .. for such an increase …

Discussion: Please consider re-writing the section. I would also suggest a reconstruction that includes a subsection entitled “Strengths and limitations of this study”. That would be a nice fit for you to explain interesting points that can be found throughout the text. Possibly, the future research subchapter could be a part of it.

  Comments are included in the above section

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you 

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have done a good working trying to address the reviewer’s comments. I would kindly like to make two more suggestions:

1.      Try to have a uniform layout for your figures; that applies to the font size used. Regarding figures 7 – 10 what about omitting the average driving speed unit on the legend header and “moving” it to the three scenarios examined (e.g. Wheeled: 3.4 km/h) or similar? Can you also consider changing the light blue color in a darker one (dark green)? The visibility is problematic with light colors, as in Figure 9.

2.      Regarding the points you are asking the Editor’s decision, I also think that the Editor should decide on the next steps/potential changes.

Overall, a very good manuscript and all my comments aimed at improving the presentation of the specific study.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions regarding the figures. We have gone through them and adjusted overall size, font size, and the light blue color to improve their appereance.