How Digital Technologies Can Support Sustainability of the Waterborne Passenger Mobility Ecosystem: A Case Study Analysis of Smart Circular Practices in Northern Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article focuses on examining how digital technologies support sustainability within the waterborne passenger mobility ecosystem, specifically analyzing smart circular practices in Northern Europe. It aims to address the challenge of making waterborne passenger transportation more sustainable by leveraging digital technologies and implementing smart circular strategies.
The identified problem revolves around enhancing the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of waterborne passenger mobility systems. This includes reducing emissions, optimizing resource utilization, minimizing waste, and improving overall efficiency in the transportation sector. The article explores how the integration of digital technologies such as IoT, BDA (Big Data Analytics), and AVR (Augmented and Virtual Reality) can facilitate smart circular practices to tackle these sustainability challenges within the industry.
After reviewing the article, Reviewer have identified several issues that could be improved to enhance the overall quality and clarity of the research. Here are the key issues and suggestions for improvement:
1. The article lacks in-depth analysis or context regarding the significance and broader implications of the findings.
Suggestion: Provide more contextual information on the significance of smart circular practices in the waterborne passenger mobility ecosystem. Discuss broader industry implications, potential challenges, and future research directions.
2. Insufficient reference or integration of relevant literature in the field.
Suggestion: Strengthen the literature review by integrating more recent and pertinent sources to support the analysis. Ensure proper citation of sources to back up claims or findings.
3. The language is overly technical or complex, potentially hindering accessibility for a broader audience.
Suggestion: Simplify complex terms where possible and ensure the language used is accessible to a wider readership without sacrificing accuracy.
By addressing these issues and implementing suggested improvements, the article can become more coherent, insightful, and valuable to its audience.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSimplify complex terms where possible and ensure the language used is accessible to a wider readership without sacrificing accuracy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your invitation, and I am proud to have the opportunity to review the paper in your journal.
The paper is well done and surely should find its way to readers.
I would like to thank the authors for their fascinating and current research topics. It needs to be treated as a critical voice in the discussion, and the proposed holistic approach is important for the raised issue.
However, before it can be published, the depth of recommendation should be augmented.
Overall, I lacked a real discussion section. This must be improved because it is too short. The Discussion section should provide a literature review of studies published or accessed elsewhere. Please compare your research with similar studies to draw an adequate conclusion. It is crucial to improve the scientific level of this manuscript.
This study fills a gap in the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper explores the theme of digital technology-facilitated circular practices in the Waterborne Passenger Mobility (WPM) ecosystem. Through the examination of five case studies in the Northern European context, applying the "Smart Circular WPM Ecosystem Framework" previously developed by the authors, the study offers new insights into this field. The research introduces an innovative perspective by considering all system actors and their interactions, emphasizing the relationship between digitalization and circular economy, crucial for advancing sustainable urban transportation.
However, the paper has some shortcomings in certain areas that require major revisions. Here are the specific review comments:
1. Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review: The paper does a commendable job in introducing the concepts of WPM ecosystem and Smart Circular Economy but lacks a comprehensive literature review. It is recommended that the authors expand the literature review section to include other studies related to the WPM ecosystem and applications of digital technology in facilitating circular economy.
2. Research Methodology: While the paper describes the framework and methodology used, this section is somewhat brief. A detailed explanation of the research methods, particularly the criteria for case study selection, data collection, and analysis process, is suggested.
3. Depth and Detail of Case Studies: The current description of case studies is rather superficial and requires more in-depth analysis and detailed discussion. Each case should be analyzed more comprehensively, including how they specifically implement smart circular practices and how these practices impact the entire ecosystem.
4. Conclusions and Future Research Directions: The conclusion section needs further strengthening to clearly summarize key findings and discuss their implications for both theory and practice. Additionally, future research directions, especially suggestions on how to expand or improve the Smart Circular WPM Ecosystem framework, are recommended.
5. Practical Application and Policy Recommendations: The paper is strong in theoretical analysis but lacks discussion on practical application and policy recommendations. A discussion on how to translate research findings into practical applications and policy suggestions in the conclusion section is advised.
In summary, while this paper offers valuable insights into the study of the WPM ecosystem, it requires major revisions to address the issues mentioned above. With the necessary modifications, this paper has the potential to be a significant contribution to the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been appropriately modified according to the comments. Therefore, I suggest accepting it in its present form.
