Modeling Structural Changes in Intra-Asian Maritime Container Shipping Networks Considering Their Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

The article proposal is interesting but a lot of rework is needed. It does not sound ready for submission.

My major concern is the paper seems not connected to the scope of Sustainability. The journal MDPI Logistics is more appropriate. 

From my point of view, the paper fails to present the study, and the sections are not ready yet based on the methodological procedure to present a manuscript. I suggest reading other papers on Sustainability to improve presentation.

I included below some comments to help you improve your paper and try a new submission in the future. Sorry for my decision, but I believe that with more work the paper could be resubmitted and published, because the theme is important to logistics fields, and Asia is an important international market and supplier.

 

Introduction

1. The authors should provide references for the affirmations presented in the introduction

2. Previous studies are required

3. The problem should be addressed in more detail using the literature

Literature Review

1. Literature review of this paper cannot focus only on graph theory studies. Graph theory is the method adopted. Provide the theory regarding network analysis based on graphs.

2. The studies should be presented considering the temporal mark, presenting them showing the evolution of the research.

3. Provide background on container maritime transportation

4. Create subsections

5. You must indicate in the introduction and literature review the relation between your work and sustainability issues.

Section 3.1 is the literature review

Section 3.2 is methodology. Please correaccordinging

Figures 1, 2,3, and 4 must be improved in resolution and size. Moreover, the title of the axis must be included

Results

1. Describe results in detail using results from the literature to compare them.

2. Figures present the same issues indicated in previous ones.

3. What software did you use for the graphs. Indicate in the methodology section to be created.

Discussion

1. The discussion just explains the results. There is no discussion. Which means your results to the MCN problem? Is connected to previous studies in literature or not?

2. The graphs in Figure 12 are ineligible. I think that a discussion detailed about this is needed.

Conclusion

1. Provide the conclusions of your work, the section currently seems a discussion without literature.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper titled “Modeling Structural Changes in Intra-Asian Maritime Con-2 tainer Shipping Networks Considering their Characteric" is interesting. The study is qualified to fill the important gap in Article fills a gap in research on container shipping in Southeast and Southnorth Asia.  The conslusions are clearly presented.

Myonly  suggestion is to increase the literature on the performance of container shipping with reference to its operating model in the second part of the article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The usefulness and advantages of MCS network as compare to other prediction methods are not well justified. 

2. Few abbreviations are not defined (Even its a standard terms) such as MDS, TEU, AUC and etc. 

3. The source of databases are not well identified. Author should mentioned clearly about the dataset used in this modelling and its variables. 

4. Refer to table 1, the number of ports involved in this study on every year are different. Will this affect the reliability of the predictive results?

5.  line 323, model "Caliburation" - typo

6. Author is encourage to provide extra critical investigation on the results provided. Also, try to provide deeper analysis on the abnormal behavior of the results obtained. 

The English is generally acceptable. However, further proof reading is highly encouraged. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no comments