Progressive Methods of the Harmfulness Evaluation of Transport in Terms of Emission Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my main concerns.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you very much for your comments, observations and feedback. It helped us significantly to improve the quality of our contribution.

Best regards!

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a lack of coherence between the points in the abstract and it is recommended that it be revised in general;

The current revision is limited to adding a small amount of content and should be generally revised and improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical issues that need to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, observations and feedback. It helped us significantly to improve the quality of our contribution. All changes in the paper are marked in yellow. Grammatical issues have been corrected, English language has also been checked.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please find comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you very much for your comments, observations and feedback. It helped us significantly to improve the quality of our manuscript. Responses to your comments are in the attachment.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments, see the attachment, please.

 

Best regards!

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments were addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, observations and feedback. All your requests have already been incorporated into the text during the previous round and are marked in yellow. The English language has been checked by a native English speaker as well as other experts in professional and scientific English. Some sentences have been revised, deficiencies and errors have been corrected. 

Best regards!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Though the topic addressed in this paper is interesting, the current version of it is not suitable for potential publication in this journal. My major concerns follow. First, the novelty and originality are not obvious. Second, the writing needs significant improvement. It reads like a project report. Third, this paper needs an English editing pass. Many grammatical errors and inappropriate expressions exist. Forth, the measures proposed in the sub-section 3.7 seems to be like a text-style “broad” toolkit. They lack focus and close connections with the research of this paper. Last, the literature review part is not written well and needs to be improved. Minor issues include erroneous figure/table numbering.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

this paper needs an English editing pass

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is somewhat unfocused, but I think much of that can be attributed to the way the literature review is handled and the study subsequently situated within that literature. On page 19 the authors emphasize the contribution of the paper. I would strongly encourage the authors to revise the presentation of the literature in such a way that the contribution of the paper can be situated within it as an important extension of knowledge/methods. The literature review should emphasize what is known, topically and with respect to methods, and what is not known, in the same matters. The contribution would then fit naturally. As written the literature review begins with a long section that describes works without indicating their findings before shifting into other matters. It is not well structured, nor is a logical framework introduced to organize it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should proofread the paper for minor editing needs.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the carbon emissions of Slovak Republic and recommends some strategies for carbon reduction in rail transportation. Below are some suggestions for the authors:

 

Abstract.

Reduce the background description and should elaborate more on the methodology and results, conclusions. Abbreviations should be given in full the first time they appear and applied later.

Introduction.

Few descriptions of related studies, it is suggested to enrich related studies and summarize the gaps of related studies.

Materials and Methods.

The paragraphs are too long and it is suggested to split them according to the main idea of the paragraph;

This section is a bit redundant, some content may be placed in the Introduction section may be more appropriate, and this section can be optimized by combining this section with the Introduction section;

Suggestion to add a description of the data used in the study;

Results.

This paper proposes carbon reduction strategies for rail transportation based on the results of the macro study, but these strategies lack specificity. It is suggested that carbon reduction strategies should be tailored to the specific context of the study area;

Discussion.

It is suggested to add the comparison with the findings of related studies, and the feasibility of the proposed carbon reduction strategies for rail transportation.

Conclusions.

It is suggested to focus on summarizing the findings and conclusions of this paper, and delete irrelevant discussions and descriptions of the importance of carbon reduction.

 

It is suggested to optimize the structure of the paper and the content of each section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammar and phrases are suggested to be optimized.