The Role of Multimodal Transportation in Ensuring Sustainable Territorial Development: Review of Risks and Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors gave an interesting review of risks and prospects regarding multimodal transportation and its role in ensuring sustainable development. The paper is very well written with an extensive literature overview on the topic of the international transport corridors in the Russian Artic as well as the north-south direction that can be very interesting to potential readers. My recommendation is to accept the submission for publishing, with some minor issues that are given in the following.

Update Figure 2 regarding 4 regions of Ukraine that are now contested to be a part of the Russian Federation (with some neutral colour at least). The left and right parts of Figure 2 are not the same regarding some of these regions’ visualization. 

Regarding equation (1), please define all notations. For example, index m, n etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your  feedback on our paper. Please see file which explain our responses to the comments, and we highlighted all changes in the manuscript as track changes.

Best regard,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript presented to me for review does not meet the criterion of scientificity. The described research problem is not clear. A literature review is selective and subjective. The authors omitted the requirements for the selection of literature, which resulted in the omission of many valuable publications. The authors cite themselves, making this clear in the manuscript.

The structure of the article is also disturbed.
The methodology presented in the article is illegible, it is at the end of the manuscript. The research results are not noticeable, they are difficult to validate.

Some of the threads in the manuscript are interesting, but not enough for a positive review. Sorry.

In my opinion, the manuscript should be revised and resubmitted for review by MDPI requirements.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your  feedback on our paper. Please see file which explain our responses to the comments, and we highlighted all changes in the manuscript as track changes.

Best regard,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 Thanks for submitting your paper to Sustainability. This paper aims to

-      Firstly, I have a concern for research aim. In the abstract, the research aim is not clearly revealed. Please state the clear research objective.

-      Introduction part looks very weak and short. I cannot find the research objective in the introduction. Please state the it clearly. Furthermore, please state the convincing research gaps prior to research objective.

-      Literature review part looks very long, but it misses an explanation and characteristics of multimodal transportation, which is included in the title. So, some reviews pertaining to the multimodal transport studies are necessary. Please add it in introduction or literature review section. Please refer to the prior studies below ((1). Evaluation of logistics service for multimodal transport via Trans-Siberian Railway: A perspective of shippers in South Korea, Journal of International Logistics and Trade 18 (4), 169-180;  (2) Multimodal transportation via TSR for effective Northern logistics: Perspectives of Korean logistics companies, Maritime Business Review 5 (3), 291-308; (3) Multimodal transportation: The case of laptop from Chongqing in China to Rotterdam in Europe, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 33 (3), 155-165; (4) Trade-offs in multimodal transport options: the case of logs carriage from US to South Korea, International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 8 (1), 49-63)

-      Please add the source about Figure 1.

-      The conclusion does not have some policy implications. Please add some decent implications.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your  feedback on our paper. Please see file which explain our responses to the comments, and we highlighted all changes in the manuscript as track changes.

Best regard,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I stand by my previous assessment. In my opinion, the manuscript has still not been properly revised. There are too many self-citations, but also other comments from the previous review still apply.

I'm sorry, but ethics prevents me from giving a positive evaluation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your  feedback on our paper. Please see file which explain our responses to the comments, and we highlighted all changes in the manuscript as track changes.

Best regard,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All raised concerns were addressed, so I recommend accept. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments.

Best regard,

Authors