Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Armaan Kamat1 and
  • Max Z. Li2,*

Reviewer 1: Busyairah Syd Ali Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific Comments:

·       Line 54-58: Please provide the reference to statement/claim.

·       Abstract and Introduction: There are repeating sentences in both section. For example, line 61-64 repeats from the Abstract section. Please check all occurrences. Paraphrase if the Authors want to revisit the point.

·       Line 234-235: Remove repeated word.

·       Line 250: Spell in full ‘EAS’ for first time.

·       Line 326: ‘on/of? air traffic controllers’. Please revise.

·       Line 416-418: Revise the sentence. It is not clear what the Authors are trying to convey.

·     In the Discussion section, it would be good if Authors can include any new operational procedures introduced by ICAO, IATA, ESA, CANSO, EUROCONTROL, RTCA and/or other regulating bodies post the pandemic, as a result of the Covid-19.

General Comments:

·    Check for minor grammatical errors. Get a third person to read the manuscript to identify minor grammatical errors.

·    This paper covers broad scope of review. It can guide other researchers to identify a focused research area for example on the Impact of Covid-19 on ATCo performance during and post pandemic.

·      The method used to come up with the Systematic Literature Review is clearly explained.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well written. Minor grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attached response to reviewer 1. Thank you for your time and effort in providing this review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate very much the subject of your article, as well as the way you approached the topic.

Still, there are some elements which, in my opinion, need improvements. There are paragraphs in the article which state ideas that are not sufficient detailed and also lack appropriate referencing.

It is necessary to support the statement between lines 42-44 with statistical data. Considering the moment of your article submission, namely the middle of 2024, it is important to highlight the most recent statistical data to which you have access.

At the same time, to support the objectives of a review article based on a single reference (lines 74-82) is inconsistent.

At lines 140-141 you mentioned that one of the filters used was: " Papers that did not directly address at least one operational aspect of ATM or ATC". Please detail which are these operational aspects of ATM or ATC.

At lines 177-179 there is a lack of details on the recovery strategies you refer to and also the reference source/sources.

The final part of the article misses to include future research directions. Literature review between 2022-present time will underline what changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic in ATC and ATM are still in use. 

Author Response

Please see the attached response to reviewer 2. Thank you for your time and effort in providing this review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I have read your article with interest. I liked the article.

I found the following advantages in it:

1. Clear structuring of the content of the entire article, both in form and content. Availability of The Application.

2. Correct approaches to structuring the studied material (dividing the article into three information blocks):

- Strategic Air Traffic Management and Response,

- Air Traffic Control and Airport Operational Changes,

- Air Traffic System Resilience.

3. A fairly high-quality analysis of the presented material.

At the same time, I suggest that you slightly improve the visual appeal of the article. To do this, it would be good to present the results in the form of any diagrams, graphs, drawings. I don't think it's very difficult. But this would significantly improve the quality of visual perception of the article materials.

Author Response

Please see the attached response to reviewer 3. Thank you for your time and effort in providing this review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf