Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) There is no comparison of algorithms, and the performance of algorithms is unknown.

(2) In the introduction, the focus of this study is not clear, that is, the research gap and research content are relatively vague. It needs to be summarized in the overview and algorithm part.

(3) In innovation, it is said that the algorithm has been designed, but there is no clear where the innovation of the algorithm is.

(4) The case data is from the data of 2019 in China, whether it can be applied to the current situation.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. The responses to the comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Researcher,

Congratulations on your research! The paper is structured correctly, has scientific relevance and is supported by well-argued conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Article

Hierarchical multimodal hub location problem with carbon 

emissions

The paper falls within the scope of the journal Sustainability. Represented an interesting study with some quality elements. 

The advantages of the paper are:

- The overall quality of the paper.

- The paper has excellent structure with a clear explanation. 

- The authors have shown an extensive literature review with a large number of relevant studies.

- Good definition of the problem.

 

However, should be improved according to the following tasks.

- Clear aims, main contributions, and novelty are missing in the abstract. Now the abstract is not concise.

- In the introduction section the following tasks should be fulfilled: the introduction should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: What are the gaps in literature? What are the main aims of this article?" Contributions are well described.

- In the Methodology section should be ensured the diagram flow with shown research.

- What new brings your paper? Clear note and explain novelty.

- Discussion including detailed implications, and limitations, should also be part of the paper.

- Directions for future research should be added in detail.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. The responses to the comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This article threats a very important topic which relates very closely to hub-and-spoke theory. The authors have made a very good job in integrating sustainability criteria in a decision model and as well in working out a case study through a tangible adaptive genetic algorithm.

 

 

I find that the conclusions section is limited and it could be further expanded. This section should better emphasize the great contribution of this research, the model reproducibility potential in other areas/ports and the potential impact on the maritime sector as a hole (if the model is used on a larger scale). The authors should not forget giving as well details about recommendations for future research and practical applications.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. The responses to the comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Format problem: For example, the font of i in 365 lines should be italic in this paragraph.

Reviewer 4 Report

Very well done addressing the suggestions.