Essential Safety Factors for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road: A Case Study of Lithuania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After applying the corrections, the paper obtained a new quality. Most of the amendments postulated in previous reviews were included and weaved into the content.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript (824512) with the title “Essential Safety Factors for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road”. We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made many changes in the manuscript according to your helpful comments.

Point: After applying the corrections, the paper obtained a new quality. Most of the amendments postulated in previous reviews were included and weaved into the content.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate changes that have been made in order to improve the manuscript. In my opinion the necessary explanations and supplementations are in some cases not sufficient enough. That is why I would like to list some minor remarks concerning parts of article that has not been changed good enough.

GENERAL REMARKS:

I am not satisfied with your response:

“5) How does this study refer to sustainable transport? Can you make a connection?

Response: Sustainable and safe transport are very close descriptions, so we think the article may be appropriate for this Journal. As far as we were interested, similar articles are published in the journal Sustainability.”

Explanation:

• Neither “sustainable” nor “sustainability” expression can be found in your paper.

In fact, the definitions of ‘sustainable’ and ‘safe’ are NOT THE SAME. You heve made  a "simplification" that cannot be accepted.

DETAILS:

I am not satisfied with your response:

“lines 219 – 227 – In my opinion you should not give the result for every formula, but use well known methods for presenting results, even a table would be better. This must be improved. These equations have already been explained and you should give your results.

Response: I have provided only examples of how the values should be calculated, just to make it clear to every reader. I canceled some of the calculations.”

Explanation:

Equations (14 – 19)  – You should not give the result for every formula, but use well known methods for presenting results, even a TABLE would be better.  Equations have already been explained in the previous part of your article and you should give your results in other way.

You have listed this equations as if they were new, but you have only “substituted numbers” to the formula given in the previous part of the article. You could refer to the formulas given before and summarise your results and comment.

As the other Reviewer emphasized: “simple calculations should be omitted” – they are clear enough for the scientific reader.

THIS HAS TO BE IMPROVED.

OTHER:

• lines 134 - 137 – “According to statistics” – what kind of statistics do you refer to?
• line 182 – “The problem of expert selection is highlighted in the scientific literature.” – can you give any example?
• lines 407 – 408 “Scientific articles can be found on the factors that usually determine the likelihood of accidents.” – can you give any example?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript (824512) with the title “Essential Safety Factors for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road”. We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made many changes in the manuscript according to your helpful comments. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper as the attached file. Our responses to your comments are listed as following one by one.

Point 1. I appreciate changes that have been made in order to improve the manuscript. In my opinion the necessary explanations and supplementations are in some cases not sufficient enough. That is why I would like to list some minor remarks concerning parts of article that has not been changed good enough.

 GENERAL REMARKS:

I am not satisfied with your response:

“5) How does this study refer to sustainable transport? Can you make a connection?

Explanation:

• Neither “sustainable” nor “sustainability” expression can be found in your paper.

In fact, the definitions of ‘sustainable’ and ‘safe’ are NOT THE SAME. You heve made a "simplification" that cannot be accepted.

Response: Thanks for comments. Now I tried to make a connection between the manuscript and the title of the Journal Sustainability. I admit that I was wrong that “safe” and “sustainable” are similar concepts. The introduction is now supplemented as follows:

“Sustainability is important for many reasons, including the quality of transport and the environment. To have a healthy community, we need clean air, sustainable transportation and a non-toxic environment. Sustainable transport is a major transport facility that is sustainable in terms of social, environmental and climate impacts. Sustainability of transport is measured by the efficiency and effectiveness of the transport system, as well as the impact of the system on the environment and climate. Sustainability is crucial for the transport of dangerous goods as it seeks to protect our natural environment, human and ecological health without compromising our way of life.”

Point 2. DETAILS:

I am not satisfied with your response:

“lines 219 – 227 – In my opinion you should not give the result for every formula, but use well known methods for presenting results, even a table would be better. This must be improved. These equations have already been explained and you should give your results.

Explanation:

Equations (14 – 19) – You should not give the result for every formula, but use well known methods for presenting results, even a TABLE would be better.  Equations have already been explained in the previous part of your article and you should give your results in other way.

You have listed these equations as if they were new, but you have only “substituted numbers” to the formula given in the previous part of the article. You could refer to the formulas given before and summarise your results and comment.

As the other Reviewer emphasized: “simple calculations should be omitted” – they are clear enough for the scientific reader.

THIS HAS TO BE IMPROVED.

Response: Thank You for comments. The results in the new version of the manuscript have been rearranged. Simple calculations are now removed. Equations (10) - (16) no longer exist. In the text, lines 297-309 have been deleted.

Equation (17) has become Equation (10);

Equation (18) has become Equation (11);

Equation (19) has become Equation (12).

Point 3. OTHER:

• lines 134 - 137 – “According to statistics” – what kind of statistics do you refer to?

Response: Thanks. I meant that the official database of the European Union is Eurostat and Official Statistics Portal (Statistics Lithuania). Available online: http://www.stat.gov.lt/. The references are in the list [33] and [34]. These links are included in the text.

Point 4.

• line 182 – “The problem of expert selection is highlighted in the scientific literature.” – can you give any example?

Response: Thank You for comments. Example:

Sėrikovienė, A. (2013). Mokomųjų objektų daugkartinio panaudojimo kokybės vertinimo metodų taikymo tyrimas (Research on the application of quality assessment methods for reusable learning objects). Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius University. 128.

I added an additional source to the references and added a reference in the text [34].

Point 5.

• lines 407 – 408 “Scientific articles can be found on the factors that usually determine the likelihood of accidents.” – can you give any example?

Response: Thank You for comments. Since this sentence is from the conclusions, I have added a reference to the article already mentioned.

27. Gamero, N.; Silla, I.; Sainz-González, R.; Sora, B. The Influence of Organizational Factors on Road Transport Safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1938. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15091938

“Scientific articles can be found on the factors that usually determine the likelihood of accidents [27].”

I would like to thank you for your constructive help once again. If there is anything need to be modified, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The title of the article is still very general, but it is research in Lithuania. I recommend including a link to Lithuania in the title of the article. The connection to the topic of the magazine is still only average, the connection is not sufficiently proven in the introduction. I recommend emphasizing more the link to sustainability, sustainable development and its pillars in relation to the transport of dangerous goods. Keywords are still very general, for example "control". I recommend editing your keywords. Figure 3 - add newer data (2016 - 2019, for example). I recommend adding more data on Lithuania in relation to the issue, because the research is carried out in Lithuania. Missing information about the number of units in the base file (base population). On what basis were these 96 companies selected? How were they selected? Were all companies from the base set / base population addressed? It would be appropriate to insert a questionnaire or describe the questions. On the basis of which were three groups of factors identified?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript (824512) with the title “Essential Safety Factors for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road”. We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made many changes in the manuscript according to your helpful comments. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper as the attached file. Our responses to your comments are listed as following one by one.

Point 1. The title of the article is still very general, but it is research in Lithuania. I recommend including a link to Lithuania in the title of the article.

Response: Thank You for comments. I agree to change the title of the article, but I don’t know if I can do it now. The editor should be consulted. I think it could be supplemented as follows:

“Essential Safety Factors for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road: a Case Study of Lithuania”

Point 2. The connection to the topic of the magazine is still only average, the connection is not sufficiently proven in the introduction. I recommend emphasizing more the link to sustainability, sustainable development and its pillars in relation to the transport of dangerous goods.

Response: Thanks. The introduction is now supplemented as follows:

“Sustainability is important for many reasons, including the quality of transport and the environment. To have a healthy community, we need clean air, sustainable transportation and a non-toxic environment. Sustainable transport is a major transport facility that is sustainable in terms of social, environmental and climate impacts. Sustainability of transport is measured by the efficiency and effectiveness of the transport system, as well as the impact of the system on the environment and climate. Sustainability is crucial for the transport of dangerous goods as it seeks to protect our natural environment, human and ecological health without compromising our way of life.”

Point 3. Keywords are still very general, for example "control". I recommend editing your keywords.

Response: Thanks.  I deleted the keyword "control" and put the words „road transport” in its place.

Point 4.  Figure 3 - add newer data (2016 - 2019, for example). I recommend adding more data on Lithuania in relation to the issue, because the research is carried out in Lithuania.

Response: Thank You for comments. No more recent data has yet been officially released.

Yes, it is done. Data on dangerous goods transported in Lithuania have been added.

” According to the data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics on the volumes of transport of dangerous goods by road in Lithuania [34], it can be stated that from 2013 to 2017, the volumes of transport of dangerous goods by road increased every year (Figure 3). During the 5 analyzed years, the volumes of dangerous goods almost doubled - 1711.6 thousand. tons to 3026.5 thousand. tons.

Figure 3. Volumes of dangerous goods transported by road in Lithuania 2013-2017 (thousand tons) [34]

The types of dangerous goods transported in Lithuania are very similar to those in the European Union.”

Point 5. Missing information about the number of units in the base file (base population). On what basis were these 96 companies selected? How were they selected? Were all companies from the base set / base population addressed? It would be appropriate to insert a questionnaire or describe the questions.

Response: Thank You for comments. 96 companies were selected from almost 1000 companies that transport dangerous goods on international and domestic routes. It was initially clarified how many times a year road hauliers transport dangerous goods. From the 96 analyzed companies, companies that transport dangerous goods from 81 times and more per year were selected. Other companies that transport dangerous goods less than 80 times a year have been rejected.

The questionnaire is quite large, so it is not possible to put it all in the article. Unfortunately, I only have it in Lithuanian language.

Point 6. On the basis of which were three groups of factors identified?

Response: Factors were invented and needed to be grouped. This is how groups came into being.

I would like to thank you for your constructive help once again. If there is anything need to be modified, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author, thank you for incorporating my comments. I believe that the article is acceptable in this form. I wish you good luck in all other activities.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the article is general, but it is research in Lithuania. I recommend including a link to Lithuania in the title of the article. The connection to the topic of the magazine is very weak, the connection is not sufficiently proven in the introduction. I recommend emphasizing more the link to sustainability, sustainable development and its pillars in relation to the transport of dangerous goods. Keywords are very general, for example "control". I recommend editing your keywords. The article lacks a link to legislation, such as ADR (Accord européen relatif au transport international des marchandises Dangereuses par Route). The literature search is very weak and insufficient. The author did not use sufficiently available resources to perform a quality literary research. The references used are insufficient - articles from journals in the field are missing. The article contains typos (row 90 - "is to is to"). Figure 1 and Figure 3 - source missing. Figure 2 - inappropriate placement of the legend in the chart. Figure 3 - add newer data (2016 - 2019, for example). I recommend adding more data on Lithuania in relation to the issue, because the research is carried out in Lithuania. Missing information about the number of units in the base file (base population). On what basis were these 96 companies selected? How were they selected? Were all companies from the base set / base population addressed? The rate of return is very low (10 out of 96). It would be appropriate to insert a questionnaire or describe the questions. On the basis of which were three groups of factors identified? I would recommend adding a processing procedure to Chapter Three.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes several safety factors in the context of transportation of dangerous goods by road in Lithuania based on a survey conducted by the author.  In this current format, the manuscript has the following weaknesses:

1. The title of the paper should mention Lithuania since this study is done solely there. Additionally, given the survey respondents are from Lithuania, findings reported might only be applicable there.
2. The last sentence of the abstract mentions that the factors identified in the study should be used to develop models…this brings a question on who would develop such model(s)? The author should provide more convincing use of the study.
3. The writing needs significant improvement. The introduction section is very random and does not flow well.  Some specific comments: line-42, remove “authors” --- there is no need to do this in any scientific article.  There are several cases like this throughout the paper.
4. The literature review presented in the Introduction section does not include many related studies. A quick search provided the following articles.  The reviewer believes many other studies are not presented in the article.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6248105

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.06.004

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041344

5. Problem analysis can easily be presented at the beginning of the article and then the author could mention how this current study is contributing to the current body of knowledge. Also, the author needs to find out the gap in the current literature.  It is recommended to include a list of contributions of this study.
6. Table 3: How are these factors selected? Why aren’t there any references to support the factors?
7. Page 4: Many more details are required for the survey; this is a major component of the study.
8. A lot of the equations and mathematical notations are presented as figure, not text.
9. Line 219: Typically, in a scientific article, the Equation term is used not Formula.
10. Pages 7-8: All these calculations can be presented in a concise form. In this current format, it does not look like what should be in a scientific article.  It is not required to present every single calculating in a scientific article.
11. Line 333: What do you mean by foreign authors?
12. The major weakness of this study is the critical analysis of how the findings are comparable with the existing studies. This is very important for any exploratory analysis like the one presented in this study.  Without this, the current study is no more than a technical analysis.

Reviewer 3 Report

I find your study as result of extensive survey. However I would like to list of major and minor remarks or questions to the author(s). By dispelling my doubts you will improve and supplement your paper making it better for publishing in this journal. In my opinion this article deviates from the standards of this journal, but maybe a ‘major review’ will motivate the author(s) to improve the quality of the article significantly.

General remarks:

1) Sources for figures - reference to the source should be standardized and given any time the statistical data is used.

2) The scope for data analyses changes  in time (2010 – 2015, 2013 – 2017, 2011 – 2014) – it should be explained why.

3) Section 3 – You should highlight the new approach to this methods – their modifications or unique application, as they are well known and not new (based on publications from 1990 and 2011)

4) The literature analysis should be expanded by adding some high quality papers (focus on Journals with JCR more).

5) How does this study refer to sustainable transport? Can you make a connection?

Details:

line 82 and line 333 – “In the scientific articles of foreign authors” – Why these authors are called “foreign”? This sentence builds unnecessary distance.

line 90 – “The aim of the article is to is to find out” – “is to” repeated twice.

line 96 – In my opinion petroleum products are not only “common pollutants” but also the kind dangerous goods that are transported very often. Can you refer?

line 105 – “Classes 2 and 3” should be explained to the further audience.

line 113 – Figure 2 has not been prepared correctly and is hardly ‘readable’ – it has to be replaced.

lines 140 – 145 - The description of the method should be extended and better justified.

lines 219 – 227 – In my opinion you should not give the result for every formula, but use well known methods for presenting results, even a table would be better. This must be improved. These equations have already been explained and you should give your results.

This remark should be taken into consideration in next parts of your article.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents interesting and important topic of the safe transport of dangerous goods. Author focuses on the conditions of carriage of dangerous goods and evaluates factors affecting the carriage of dangerous goods by road transport. The research presented in the paper uses Kendall Ratings Correlation Method and the Medium-Range Transformation Weights (ARTIW) method.

The paper is worth of considering for publication but there are some places which must be corrected or changed for better quality of the content.

Authors should consider the following comments:

• The paper touches quite well defined and very restricted by law area of transport. What is the purpose of the research? What impact it will potentially have on these regulations?
• The paper is written in quite good English, but stylistic correction is strongly required.
• Bibliography should be written in Latin alphabet, while some entries are in Cyrillic.
• The problem presented by authors concerns the safety of transport of dangerous goods, but the literature review lacks the analysis of route planning approach for hazardous materials transportation, especially in the context of space and time separation of vehicles on the road network. Route planning is the subject of many internal urban law regulations. Papers in this area can be found in many journals, e.g. Transport, or some relevant articles in the Archives of Transport or other journals. (For example:
  • Chai, H., He, R., Jia, X., Ma, C., Dai., C., 2018. Generalized route planning approach for hazardous materials transportation with equity consideration. Archives of Transport, 46(2), 33-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.2101
  • Assael, M. J., Paschalidis, L. C., & Sakellaropoulos, G. P., 2015. Evaluation of the effects of fires and explosions in the transport of hazardous materials. Archives of Transport, 34(2), 7-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5604/08669546.1169206)
• The surveys should be described in more detail. Why only 10 surveys out of 96 were selected for consideration? How was the minimum sample size estimated?
• The author should explain how the experts provided answers. Did the survey suggest what was more important to them? This could affect the results.
• The mathematical problem is very simple and requires to be developed to more detailed description and some very simple calculations should be omitted.
• The paper lacks any information about the error or confidence level. Statistical analyzes were made, why the error analysis was omitted.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes several safety factors in the context of transportation of dangerous goods by road in Lithuania based on a survey conducted by the author.  In this current format, the manuscript has the following weaknesses:

1. The title of the paper should mention Lithuania since this study is done solely there. Additionally, given the survey respondents are from Lithuania, findings reported might only be applicable there.
2. The last sentence of the abstract mentions that the factors identified in the study should be used to develop models…this brings a question on who would develop such model(s)? The author should provide more convincing use of the study.
3. The writing needs significant improvement. The introduction section is very random and does not flow well.  Some specific comments: line-42, remove “authors” --- there is no need to do this in any scientific article.  There are several cases like this throughout the paper.
4. The literature review presented in the Introduction section does not include many related studies. A quick search provided the following articles.  The reviewer believes many other studies are not presented in the article.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6248105

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.06.004

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041344

5. Problem analysis can easily be presented at the beginning of the article and then the author could mention how this current study is contributing to the current body of knowledge. Also, the author needs to find out the gap in the current literature.  It is recommended to include a list of contributions of this study.
6. Table 3: How are these factors selected? Why aren’t there any references to support the factors?
7. Page 4: Many more details are required for the survey; this is a major component of the study.
8. A lot of the equations and mathematical notations are presented as figure, not text.
9. Line 219: Typically, in a scientific article, the Equation term is used not Formula.
10. Pages 7-8: All these calculations can be presented in a concise form. In this current format, it does not look like what should be in a scientific article.  It is not required to present every single calculating in a scientific article.
11. Line 333: What do you mean by foreign authors?
12. The major weakness of this study is the critical analysis of how the findings are comparable with the existing studies. This is very important for any exploratory analysis like the one presented in this study.  Without this, the current study is no more than a technical analysis.