Assessment of the Satisfaction Level of Users of Brazilian Cabotage—Containerized Cargo Segment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The issue addressed in the paper shows a particular interest in the field.
The presented study led to the development and the application of a model that evaluates the degree of satisfaction of Brazilian cabotage users, especially the one intended for the transport of containerized goods, with the services offered to them.
The contribution of the study to the transport sector consisted in the construction of an evaluation model based on multiple criteria, which can be replicated for other types of transport with the necessary adjustments.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The issue addressed in the paper shows a particular interest in the field. The presented study led to the development and the application of a model that evaluates the degree of satisfaction of Brazilian cabotage users, especially the one intended for the transport of containerized goods, with the services offered to them. The contribution of the study to the transport sector consisted in the construction of an evaluation model based on multiple criteria, which can be replicated for other types of transport with the necessary adjustments.
Response 1: We thank you very much for your thorough reading of our manuscript.
Point 2: Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's recommendation and, recognizing it was necessary, we made an English review through the entire paper, contracting MDPI editing service by a native English-speaking.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors develop a model to evaluate the degree of satisfaction of users of Brazilian cabotage. The assessment model was developed based on the Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). A framework was built for assessment consisting of seven criteria:
- Service level,
- Cargo safety,
- Cabotage routes,
- Transportation cost,
- General aspects of transportation,
- Quality of information provided by EBNs and intermediary agents, and
- other aspects related to transportation.
In the authors' assessment, the global assessment obtained a score of 7.0 on a scale of zero to ten, which is considered good. The study's contribution to the transportation sector consisted of constructing a multi-criteria assessment model, which can be replicated for other types of transportation with the necessary adjustments.
The methodology presented in the paper is not clearly presented. The article is poorly drafted, and I request that it be detracted and re-submitted for corrections. It seems to be a seminar paper rather than a scientific paper. The MCDA methodology has no background. There is a lack of justification as to why this approach was chosen. Why the SIMUS, COMET, or SPOTIS method was not chosen. I do not recommend the MACBETH method. However, maybe I am wrong. However, this article gives me more questions than answers.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The authors develop a model to evaluate the degree of satisfaction of users of Brazilian cabotage. The assessment model was developed based on the Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). A framework was built for assessment consisting of seven criteria:
- Service level,
- Cargo safety,
- Cabotage routes,
- Transportation cost,
- General aspects of transportation,
- Quality of information provided by EBNs and intermediary agents, and
- other aspects related to transportation.
In the authors' assessment, the global assessment obtained a score of 7.0 on a scale of zero to ten, which is considered good. The study's contribution to the transportation sector consisted of constructing a multi-criteria assessment model, which can be replicated for other types of transportation with the necessary adjustments.
Response 1: We thank you very much for your thorough reading of our manuscript.
Point 2: The methodology presented in the paper is not clearly presented. The article is poorly drafted, and I request that it be detracted and re-submitted for corrections. It seems to be a seminar paper rather than a scientific paper.
Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. We had first intended to write a more objective article. However, we recognized the reviewer's concern and proceeded with a comprehensive revision of the methodology section of the paper. Thus, we have rewritten and expanded the section writing in detail the procedures performed to achieve the article's objective.
Point 3: The MCDA methodology has no background. There is a lack of justification as to why this approach was chosen. Why the SIMUS, COMET, or SPOTIS method was not chosen. I do not recommend the MACBETH method. However, maybe I am wrong. However, this article gives me more questions than answers.
Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's recommendation and, recognizing it was necessary, we reference three recent articles published in Sustainability magazine that used this same method, and others from various journals demonstrating the existing bibliographic support for using the MCDA methodology. We also justify our choice for MCDA in the methodology section in this new version. As for MACBETH, this method was used only for the calculation of Value Functions, and not to support the study as a whole.
Point 4: Moderate English changes required
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer's recommendation and, recognizing it was necessary, we made an English review through the entire paper, contracting MDPI editing service by a native English-speaking.
Reviewer 3 Report
Multicriteria Decision Aid (MCDA) methodology is used to assess the satisfaction level of users of Brazilian cabotage – containerized cargo segment. Influence factors are analyzed qualitively and quantitively. The study is interesting and valuable for users and managers.The main concerns by the reviewer include: 1) as a survey by questionnaire, how many samples or experts are involved in the study? how to achieve the consensus by all? 2) the consistency analysis, which is commonly required in multicriteria decision analysis, is not conducted, which makes the results less convincing.
other comments:
(1) in line 278, multicriteria decision support methodology is abbreviated as MCDA, however, in line 57 the full name is Multicriteria Decision Aid
(2) line 98, "In the 00s decade" 1900s or 2000s? make it clear;
(3) it seems that all figures should be Tables.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Multicriteria Decision Aid (MCDA) methodology is used to assess the satisfaction level of users of Brazilian cabotage – containerized cargo segment. Influence factors are analyzed qualitively and quantitively. The study is interesting and valuable for users and managers.
Response 1: We thank you very much for your thorough reading of our manuscript.
Point 2: As a survey by questionnaire, how many samples or experts are involved in the study? how to achieve the consensus by all?
Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. We included in Section 4 a paragraph informing the number of companies that participated in the survey corresponds to 14% of the total number of companies using Brazilian cabotage (22 in 157 companies).
Point 3: The consistency analysis, which is commonly required in multicriteria decision analysis, is not conducted, which makes the results less convincing.
Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's recommendation, and recognizing it was necessary, we expanded Section 4.9 detailing the sensitivity analysis.
Point 4: In line 278, multicriteria decision support methodology is abbreviated as MCDA, however, in line 57 the full name is Multicriteria Decision Aid
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer's observation, and we fixed this typo.
Point 5: line 98, "In the 00s decade" 1900s or 2000s? make it clear;
Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer's observation, and we made it clear. It was the 2000s decade.
Point 6: it seems that all figures should be Tables.
Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer's observation and changed all figures to tables.
Point 7: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer's recommendation and, recognizing it was necessary, we made an English review through the entire paper, contracting MDPI editing service by a native English-speaking.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
However, I do not agree with the comments of the authors that the indication of 3 articles from Sustainabilitynie ejst suffice as justification for the use of this method. The authors also claim that MACBETH was not the purpose of the study.Of course, but nevertheless it was used.Please outline the background with superiority and limitation of methods. Before that, you should show an overview of the methods VIKOR, DARIA-TOPSIS, SPOTIS, COMET, etc. In addition, the formatting of the article should be improved:
- a comma (decimal place) often appears in place of a period;
- "As for MACBETH, this method was used only for the calculation of Value Functions, and not to support the study as a whole." but this Value Functions is important. Right?
Please carry out the indicated amendments
Author Response
Point 1: Moderate English changes required
Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. We hired the MDPI English Editing service in Round 1, and we understood that all the main points about the language have already been solved at this point, but we reviewed the manuscript for English typos and grammar one more time.
Point 2: - a comma (decimal place) often appears in place of a period;
Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's observation, and we fixed this typo.
Point 3: However, I do not agree with the comments of the authors that the indication of 3 articles from Sustainabilitynie ejst suffice as justification for the use of this method.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this current issue. We would like to take into account what was pointed out in Round 1. As the reviewer said, “The MCDA methodology has no background. There is a lack of justification as to why this approach was chosen. Why the SIMUS, COMET, or SPOTIS method was not chosen. I do not recommend the MACBETH method. However, maybe I am wrong. However, this article gives me more questions than answers.”. In this sense, that was the reason we proceeded with a comprehensive revision of the methodology section of the paper, including showing that the MCDA methodology has a background accepted as an assessment method. This is shown in the current manuscript in lines 146-159.
Point 4: The authors also claim that MACBETH was not the purpose of the study. Of course, but nevertheless it was used.
Response 4: We want to apologize and thank you for the new opportunity to make it clear. We agree that MACBETH is used in our research because it is implemented by the Hiview software. We used the software during the procedures for calculating assessments. We invite the reviewer to check lines 264-284, and lines 337-362.
Point 5: Please outline the background with superiority and limitation of methods. Before that, you should show an overview of the methods VIKOR, DARIA-TOPSIS, SPOTIS, COMET, etc.
Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer's recommendation. However, the paper's objective is to assess the satisfaction level of users of Brazilian Cabotage and develop an assessment model. As stated by the reviewer in Round 1, "The study's contribution to the transportation sector consisted of constructing a multi-criteria assessment model, which can be replicated for other types of transportation with the necessary adjustments," as this is a "Sustainable Maritime Policy and Management" special issue. Some of those multi-criteria methods cited by the reviewer are pretty new. For instance, the DARIA-TOPISIS is a method developed recently and contains only five documents published on Google Scholar, all from 2022. The SPOTIS first paper was a conference paper in July 2020 (https://doi.org/10.23919/FUSION45008.2020.9190347). Our research collected the data in April and May of 2021, and we have already designed the study at that time (July 2020). As we conducted and sensitivity analysis and the results showed evaluation model built is robust and that the evaluations are reliable (lines 564-584), writing an overview of other multi-criteria methods goes beyond the scope of this work as there are dozens of methods. We suggest, for future work, evaluating whether other multi-criteria methods can also effectively assess scenarios like this (lines 612-613) as it could take months, and some of those methods are not extensevely tested yet.
Reviewer 3 Report
All my concerns have been well addressed.
Author Response
Point 1: All my concerns have been well addressed.
Response 1: We thank you very much for your thorough reading of our manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the MACBETH method has been used in this research and therefore it should be explained. Even if it was not the aim of the research. If you use it then it must be explained why this method. It must show what limitations and superiority we have by using MACBETH. Even, if we do not change it (because it is part of software). The comparison can show interesting future research directions.
Please imagine that we have used the software where 2+2 is equal to 5, but the rest operation (and addition operation works correctly). in this example, you should say that addition is not correctly working here. It is a study on limitations and superiority. Then, I t should be compared with some methods. That's all.
Without this discussion in the paper, I cannot agree with the acceptance of this paper.
Author Response
Point 1: In my opinion, the MACBETH method has been used in this research and therefore it should be explained. Even if it was not the aim of the research. If you use it then it must be explained why this method.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue and clarifying it. We restructured Chapter 2. Thus, we divided the content into three sections: Cabotage in Brazil, Multi-Criteria Decision Aid, and another specific to MACBETH, where we explained the technique. In the methodology section, we improved the justification for choosing MACBETH (lines 203-210).
Point 2: It must show what limitations and superiority we have by using MACBETH. Even, if we do not change it (because it is part of software).
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue and clarifying it. We discussed the superiority and limitations of MACBETH in lines 176-192.
Point 3: The comparison can show interesting future research directions. Please imagine that we have used the software where 2+2 is equal to 5, but the rest operation (and addition operation works correctly). in this example, you should say that addition is not correctly working here. It is a study on limitations and superiority. Then, I t should be compared with some methods. That's all.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue and clarifying it. In the Multi-Criteria Decision Aid section, we present the results of a bibliometric review that evaluated the use of 26 different methods (lines 148-153). We also discuss the aspects of choosing and comparing methods, and we use a framework to support our choice of MACBETH (lines 156-162). In the MACBETH section, we discuss the technique citing a work that brings the mathematical foundations that support the method (lines 185-186). We also show some areas of knowledge that have already used the method (lines 187-192).
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved. It seems almost ready to publish. Thank you for understanding my comments. In my opinion, some new methods have been omitted like SIMUS, COMET, and SPOTIS. The authors use older method s which has fewer publications. I propose considerate to change this one small thing.
Author Response
Point 1: In my opinion, some new methods have been omitted like SIMUS, COMET, and SPOTIS. The authors use older method s which has fewer publications.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added section 2.4 to address this issue, where we describe the methods cited by the reviewer (lines 193-211).
