A Comprehensive Evaluation Method for the Service Status of Groins in Waterways Based on an AHP-Improved CRITIC Combination Weighting Optimization Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aims to integrate AHP with CRITIC methods to improve the limitations of past study. Although it seems to contribute something to both academics and practitioners, there are several points that must be improved before accepting for publication.

1. The significance of proposed and integrated methods to the problem should be better improved. There are several methods that can be used for solving the problem of study.

2. Regarding the application of AHP which is MCDM method focusing on the consideration of non-financial criteria, some related studies should be added to better highlight the significance of MCDM methods to the problem and also past related works such as DOI: 10.1108/14691930910952669, DOI: 10.1504/IJLIC.2015.067840, DOI: 10.1109/ECTIDAMTNCON53731.2022.9720385

3. The study properly compared results of original AHP and proposed method. However, authors mainly discussed on the differences of calculated values or scores. The final results from both methods could provide the same best alternative. Why do readers need to use the more complex method to solve the problem?

4. Some typos must be corrected. For example, line 449: Figure 7 should be Figure 9. Regarding Figure 9, I found results of 14 samples, but the paper mentioned 13 samples.

5. The practical implication and limitations of works must be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates the service status evaluation method of inland waterway infrastructure, which is a practical problem overall. The manuscript is well formatted but further revisions are required before it is finally accepted.

1.The service status of waterway infrastructure is significant for inland waterway management and maintenance. The comprehensive evaluation framework includes 16 indicators (shown in Fig 2). Considering the practical application of the evaluation method, it would be time-consuming to collect basic information/data for the present service status evaluation.

2.Given all relevant data are derived, a number of indicators are NOT constant, i.e. they are variables (as demonstrated in line 44-45, line 343-344) and subjected to the river discharge. Thus, the determination of indicators would become more complicated regardless of the flood and dry seasons in the Yangtze River. These are not clearly demonstrated in the present manuscript.

3.For qualitative indicators, three-year data have been applied to determine their values (as demonstrated in line 171-173). More evidences should be provided to prove its feasibility and suitability. A further uncertainty analysis would be beneficial.

4.The comprehensive score of index system is calculated by linear interpolation (as demonstrated in line 199-200). This is not reasonable in the strict sense since the damage mechanism of waterway infrastructures are always complicated.

5.A comparison of service status evaluation has been presented in Fig 9 (on page 16). It is noted that there are 14 samples which is different with the description (13 samples) on page 10 (line 320-321). Although the present study indicates that more scientific and accurate assessment would be achieved, the method is time-consuming and computationally expensive. Therefore, the present method might not be accepted by workers and staff from a practical point of view. The site inspection would be more straightforward and effective.

6.The figure 1h as demonstrated in line 106 (page 3) is not appeared in the present manuscript. The authors use different words (e.g. Ding Dam, spur dike, groin, groyne…) to describe waterway regulation works. It would be beneficial to unify aforementioned terms in the manuscript. Moreover, the motivation of present study should be more clearly demonstrated.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my suggestions have been addressed and responded properly. The paper can be now accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you so much for approving our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript discusses the practical problem of service status evaluation for waterway groins. So far, it has been appropriately revised in terms of English language and context. The authors validated their model through cases in the upper reaches of Yangtze River. Thus, additional remarks of model application in different reaches would be useful for engineers and waterway administration authorities.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, which will make our paper more rigorous. Therefore, we added the following in the "Conclusion"：

6) In practice, the characteristics of remediation buildings differ in different river basins and river sections, therefore, it may make significant errors if the results of this paper are completely replicated when the model is applied in different river sections. As a result, when engineers and waterway administration authorities use this model, it is necessary to note that the evaluation index set should be adjusted according to the actual situation. The weight coefficients must also be recalculated if the river segment environment differs from that of the upper Yangtze River. (lines 620-626, page20)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors addressed my concerns satisfactorily and carefully. I'm satisfied with this revised version of the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend to accept this article in present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your approval of our article.