Evaluation of Safety Degree at Railway Crossings in Order to Achieve Sustainable Traffic Management: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Model
, Goran Tričković 1 and Vesna Pavelkić 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I see a good research. Please summarize the "introduction" section and highlight your novelty.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Thank you very much for your useful suggestion. We accepted it and we are sure that this will improve the quality and contribute to a better understanding of the paper.
Comment: I see a good research. Please summarize the "introduction" section and highlight your novelty.
Response to comment: We have added the following (lines 79-83):
„All the above mentioned aims describe the originality of the developed integrated fuzzy model, its importance, and achieved contribution of the paper. The advantage of the developed integrated Fuzzy FUCOM-Fuzzy PIPRECIA-Fuzzy MARCOS model is the fact that the created model, eliminated the possibility of inadequate ranking compared to similar approaches as we stated further through the paper.“
Reviewer 2 Report
Sustainable traffic system management under conditions of uncertainty and inappropriate road infrastructure is a responsible and complex task, which is compatible with recent research trends. The study case is involved Bosnia and Herzegovina, where is a large number of level crossings which represent potentially risky places in traffic. This is a very important social problem.
The authors consider the Šamac – Doboj railway section and passive level crossings and propose a novel integrated Fuzzy FUCOM (Full Consistency Method) – Fuzzy PIPRECIA (PIvot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment) model, which was formed to determine the significance of the criteria.
The study is a well written scientific work. However, some improvements should be make. My comments are as follows:
1. The abstract should be a little changed to more emphases the contribution of the work
2. The contribution should be a little more emphases in the Introduction of the manuscript
3. The introduction section should be included a paragraph about another currently used fuzzy models approaches, by using A fuzzy inference system for players evaluation in multi-player sports or Fuzzy model identification using monolithic and structured approaches in decision problems with partially incomplete data or A new approach to identifying a multi-criteria decision model based on stochastic optimization techniques or similar
4. Figure 9 should be improved, the numbers are too small
5. In Table 3, the rankings are presented. I suggest compare rankings by using A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. It will be interesting to see the similarity coefficient in the sensitivity analysis
6. The description of the future research should be expanded (conclusion section)
The paper is pleasant to read and is worth publishing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your useful suggestions. We accepted almost all of the suggestions and we are sure that this will improve the quality and contribute to a better understanding of the paper.
Sustainable traffic system management under conditions of uncertainty and inappropriate road infrastructure is a responsible and complex task, which is compatible with recent research trends. The study case is involved Bosnia and Herzegovina, where is a large number of level crossings which represent potentially risky places in traffic. This is a very important social problem.
The authors consider the Šamac – Doboj railway section and passive level crossings and propose a novel integrated Fuzzy FUCOM (Full Consistency Method) – Fuzzy PIPRECIA (PIvot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment) model, which was formed to determine the significance of the criteria.
The study is a well written scientific work. However, some improvements should be make. My comments are as follows:
Comment 1: The abstract should be a little changed to more emphases the contribution of the work.
Response to comment 1: We have added one sentence in the abstract related to contribution. „An original integrated Fuzzy FUCOM – Fuzzy PIPRECIA - Fuzzy MARCOS model was created as the main contribution of the paper“.
Comment 2: The contribution should be a little more emphases in the Introduction of the manuscript.
Response to comment 2: We have added the following (lines 79-83):
„All the above mentioned aims describe the originality of the developed integrated fuzzy model, its importance, and achieved contribution of the paper. The advantage of the developed integrated Fuzzy FUCOM-Fuzzy PIPRECIA-Fuzzy MARCOS model is the fact that the created model, eliminated the possibility of inadequate ranking compared to similar approaches as we stated further through the paper.“
Comment 3: The introduction section should be included a paragraph about another currently used fuzzy models approaches, by using A fuzzy inference system for players evaluation in multi-player sports or Fuzzy model identification using monolithic and structured approaches in decision problems with partially incomplete data or A new approach to identifying a multi-criteria decision model based on stochastic optimization techniques or similar.
Response to comment 3: Thank you for your suggestion, but we prefer to stay introduction section without any reference. Why? Because in this section we show motivation for our research, the necessity for the development of the original fuzzy model. Also, we have described three aims of the paper, novelty, and contribution. The reference „Fuzzy model identification using monolithic and structured approaches in decision problems with partially incomplete data” we have cited in the sensitivity analysis section.
Comment 4: Figure 9 should be improved, the numbers are too small.
Response to comment 4: We have changed the Figure (now is Figure 10). In relation to your following comment, we have calculated WS coefficient and added these values to values of previously calculated SCC.
Comment 5: In Table 3, the rankings are presented. I suggest compare rankings by using A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. It will be interesting to see the similarity coefficient in the sensitivity analysis.
Response to comment 5: Thank you for your suggestion. This is the best part of the review. We have learned something new. Proposed WS coefficient really treating all important correlation in ranks. We have calculated WS in comparative analysis. Please see new added Figure 8.
Also, we have calculated WS coefficient for all 30 scenarios where simulated criteria weights. We have integrated the obtained WS values with SCC. Please see Figure 10. Comments for some obtained WS values were provided, also.
Comment 6: The description of the future research should be expanded (conclusion section)
Response to comment 6: Thank you. We have improved this part. The last paragraph in the conclusion section look:
The imperative is that some of above mentioned measures for improvement of the traffic safety degree at level crossings be implemented in short possible time. Future research that represents the continuation of this study refers to the formation of such or similar models for determining the safety level of other railway lines in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is necessary to create unique model for all railway crossings on the complete railway line. Can be applied some other approaches for risk analysis.
The paper is pleasant to read and is worth publishing.
