A Systematic Review of Railway Trespassing: Problems and Prevention Measures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
first of all, I congratulate you on the paper because I think it is interesting, and above all it allows you to have an overview of the literature on railway trespassing.
I believe that you can intervene in two aspects:
- I suggest reviewing the introduction trying to introduce the theme and briefly illustrating the organization of the systematic collection of literature. I would summarize subparagraphs 1.1 and 1.2 by removing them as subsections of the introduction and moving them to paragraph 2.
- the conclusions should be broadened, so as to summarize the results of the systematic review of the literature, highlight the limits, and trace the future research paths in a broader way.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. In addition, we are pleased that you found merit in the manuscript.
Comment 1: I suggest reviewing the introduction trying to introduce the theme and briefly illustrating the organization of the systematic collection of literature. I would summarize subparagraphs 1.1 and 1.2 by removing them as subsections of the introduction and moving them to paragraph 2.
Response 1: The changes to Introduction were made to better explained the theme and structure of paper (lines 74-86). We reorganized Chapter 1 and added Chapter 2. As suggested the subparagraphs 1.1 and 1.2. were moved to Chapter 2 (Background of railway trespassing accidents – starting line 87).
Comment 2: - the conclusions should be broadened, so as to summarize the results of the systematic review of the literature, highlight the limits, and trace the future research paths in a broader way.
Response 2: The suggested comments are considered (lines 774-777, lines 781-786, lines 789-793, lines 811-815).
With regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Your paper is well written and deals with an interesting topic. I have two comments regarding your paper:
1) In the introduction section 1.1 and 1.2 must be a new section "Background of railway trespassing accidents", and the end of your introduction could brief state your paper structure.
2) If you could summarize your findings in one table with be interesting for the readers.
Also, as this special issue deal with sustainable transportation try in your discussion and conclusion link with that.
I enjoy reading your paper! :)
Kind regards.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. In addition, we are pleased that you found merit in the manuscript.
Comment 1: In the introduction section 1.1 and 1.2 must be a new section "Background of railway trespassing accidents", and the end of your introduction could brief state your paper structure.
Response 1: As suggested the subparagraphs 1.1 and 1.2. were moved to paragraph 2 (Background of railway trespassing accidents – starting line 87). The changes to Introduction were made to explain the structure of paper (lines 74-86).
Comment 2: If you could summarize your findings in one table with be interesting for the readers.
Response 2: The results were summarised into two tables, Table 2 and Table 3. (lines 658 – 666).
Comment 3: Also, as this special issue deal with sustainable transportation try in your discussion and conclusion link with that.
Response 3: Reference to special issue, Discussion - subparagraph 5.2. (lines 671-674), Conclusion (lines 813-814).
With regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, I have read your article with great pleasure.
Studying the materials of the article was useful for me both from the standpoint of acquaintance with thematic meta-analysis, and from the standpoint of learning how to write such articles.
The structure of the article is clear and understandable. The style of presentation of materials is logical, elegant and simply aesthetically beautiful. Figure 1 and Table 1 complement the text of the article very usefully. The conclusions are concrete.
I believe that your article can be accepted for publication without additional improvements.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. In addition, we are pleased that you found merit in the manuscript.
Comment1: Studying the materials of the article was useful for me both from the standpoint of acquaintance with thematic meta-analysis, and from the standpoint of learning how to write such articles. The structure of the article is clear and understandable. The style of presentation of materials is logical, elegant and simply aesthetically beautiful. Figure 1 and Table 1 complement the text of the article very usefully. The conclusions are concrete. I believe that your article can be accepted for publication without additional improvements.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comments. We appreciate that you enjoy reading our paper.
With regards,
Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
This research conducts a systematic review on issues related to railway trespassing and follows the PRISMA guidelines. Please see below my feedback to the authors:
1. The research context is well described, and also the originality of this study is mentioned in the introduction of this article compared to other similar studies.
2. The methodology follows the PRISMA guidelines and the research questions are correctly formulated.
3. Section 2.2 Publication search methods can be improved. Even if the keywords used for searching are mentioned at lines 196-199, I expect to see the exact query used in WoS. It is not clear if there was only one query to search in WoS or if the search was conducted separately for each keyword mentioned.
4. As authors mentioned that they made an update check during May 2023, it will be interesting to mention the observed behavior related to the indexing of new papers. Were additional papers identified compared to those found before 30 April 2023?
5. I appreciate that more than 70% of the papers included in the review are journal papers because they have a high consistency in terms of scientific contribution compared to other types of published papers.
6. The limitations of this research are correctly identified and also the future research directions.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. In addition, we are pleased that you found merit in the manuscript.
Below are responses to suggested changes:
Comment 1: Section 2.2 Publication search methods can be improved. Even if the keywords used for searching are mentioned at lines 196-199, I expect to see the exact query used in WoS. It is not clear if there was only one query to search in WoS or if the search was conducted separately for each keyword mentioned.
Response 1: The changes were made to better explain the exact query used in Wos (lines 224-229).
Comment 2: As the authors mentioned that they made an update check during May 2023, it will be interesting to mention the observed behavior related to the indexing of new papers. Were additional papers identified compared to those found before 30 April 2023?
Response 2: No new studies were published after 30 April 2023 (lines 224-225) which was added in the review.
With regards,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciated the changes made.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, the paper was significantly improved and all my topics from the first review round were addressed. The methodology is clearer and allows other researchers to replicate it or use it as a starting point for future research. Congratulations on the high-quality research done in this article according to the PRISMA guidelines and the resulting scientific contribution to the field of sustainable transportation!
