Post-Earthquake Scheduling of Rescuers: A Method Considering Multiple Disaster Areas and Rescuer Collaboration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors discuss how to solve the multi-task optimal scheduling problem for earthquake emergency rescue. This paper proposes an interesting concept for dispatching emergency personnel. However, two major problems can be raised:
1. The evaluation is too basic and not realistic unlike in the real-world scenario. For example, the use-case is said to be based on a case study of emergency medical rescue during the earthquake disaster in Ludian County, Yunnan Province, China with thousands of people were injured or killed. However, only twelve medical personnel were used to test the method proposed. More explanation is needed on how this method can be scaled and what is the impact of using fewer personnel. A scalability analysis of the proposed method is recommended.
2. In addition, the comparative analysis with existing approaches is limited, so it is difficult to really judge how best this approach performs. The explanation of the results is not enough more analysis and explanation should be added.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to propose a method for solving the multi-task optimal scheduling problem in earthquake emergency rescue, considering multiple disaster areas and the collaboration of rescuers. The method involves calculating the collaborative degrees of rescuers based on their collaborative performances, evaluating the professional abilities of rescuers using skill evaluation indicators, and obtaining comprehensive performances by combining the collaborative degrees and professional abilities. Time satisfaction degrees are then calculated by considering the travel time of rescuers and the time requirements of disaster areas. The comprehensive matching degrees are obtained by aggregating the time satisfaction degrees and comprehensive performances of rescuers. A scheduling model is constructed to maximize the comprehensive matching degrees, and the optimal scheduling scheme is determined by solving the model. The feasibility of the proposed method is illustrated through a case study.
There are some issues that need to be addressed.
1. Firstly, the title of the paper is unclear and should be improved. A more appropriate and precise title can be defined for the paper.
2. The abstract lacks organization. The research gap, contributions, and findings of the research are not presented clearly. It would be beneficial to restructure the abstract to provide a clearer overview of these aspects.
3. The logic of the introduction is not acceptable. A suggestion is to divide the introduction into two parts: the introduction and the literature review. The authors should emphasize the importance and value of investigating the problem, starting from a broader perspective such as unplanned urbanization.
4. Additionally, the research aim and objectives should be highlighted clearly in the introduction section.
5. The literature review should critically analyse the available literature. The current review lacks a critical approach and fails to highlight the limitations of existing studies.
6. Moreover, some relevant studies seem to have been overlooked in the literature review. For example see:
· “Decision support for disaster relief: Coordinating spontaneous volunteers”
· “Multi-Commodity distribution under uncertainty in disaster response phase: Model, solution method, and an empirical study”
· “Elderly people evacuation planning in response to extreme flood events using optimisation-based decision-making systems: A case study in western Sydney, Australia”
7.
8. It is recommended to include a table summarizing the literature review.
9. "2. Scheduling method" is not an appropriate heading title. A better title can be provided to accurately represent the content.
10. The problem statement and formulation section is challenging to understand and poorly organized. It is highly recommended that the authors provide a clear research problem statement using comprehensive figures to aid understanding.
11. Before delving into the formulas, the authors should present all the notations in a table and provide clear explanations for each of them.
12. The model should be presented in a clearer format for better comprehension.
13. There are inconsistencies in the notations used in the formulas that need to be addressed.
14. The scale of Figure 1 could be reduced to improve readability.
15. The case study area should be presented in a more organized format, providing relevant details and context.
16. The source of data in the case study has not been clearly presented. It is important to provide sufficient information on the data source and its credibility.
17. The authors have not provided a comprehensive discussion or clear managerial insights. This aspect should be improved to enhance the overall quality of the paper.
18. The performance of the proposed approach should be validated, particularly by comparing it with other existing methods. This would strengthen the credibility of the research and its findings.
-
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The paper topic is well placed and very interesting. Still, the analysis conducted is a bit not well explained.
Please try to explain next questions:
- Who and how evaluates the professional skill of emergency rescuer? (Ek)
- Communication and coordination spirit "C" is important for your assessments. In a real case scenario, how can you evaluate this? In addition, a rescue team is always assembled of multiple rescuers (at least 3 persons). By which standard are you accessing the C value when you have more than one person?
- Explain how have you assessed values in tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. These values cannot be reused to recheck your analysis results.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The abstract needs to be more explained for example methodology and final results
2. The final result presented in the abstract could be explained in more detail.
3. More newly published references should be added (including sustainability journal).
4. A figure related to the conclusion needs to be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors claimed that "the proposed rescuer scheduling method considering multiple disaster areas and rescuer collaboration can provide theoretical and methodological reference for practical earthquake rescue decision-making." While this may be true in some situations, however without practical implementation or a use case implementation it is difficult to judge practicality of the proposed method performance in a real disaster situation.
The aftermath of a large scale disaster is very chaotic, so assuming a theoretical method without a practical evaluation can scale well in a real-life disaster situation may be misleading. An explanation about practical implementation and deployment in real disaster should be added as part of the future work.
I will recommend that the proposed rescuer scheduling method be tested in a feasibility study or test run in a disaster drill in the future.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
-
Author Response
Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have carefully checked and corrected the English language. The yellow color is used to highlight the changes to the language.
