Faster, Better, Cheaper: Solutions to the Atmospheric Shipping Emission Compliance and Attribution Conundrum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Interestingly this reviewer asked for the paper to be reviewed by a native English speaker.  I am a native English speaker and have been writing papers in my mother tongue for 25 years!  I noted with interest that the reviewer used the phrase: “The paper does not read smooth and it is redundant”.  This phrase ironically is grammatically incorrect and should read: “The paper does not read smoothly”.  I am not sure what “… it is redundant” even means.

The reviewer asks for several “additional” words to be removed from the manuscript.  Some of the words they choose are not even in the manuscript!

Additionally, the reviewer asks for two papers to be included in the references.  Both the papers they cite are from the same lead author, and indeed from a quick inspection of the paper titles and subject matter, they are not particularly relevant.

I therefore ask the editor to discount this review on three grounds.  Firstly, the reviewer is not themselves cognisant of the basic rudiments of the English language.  Secondly, I believe that they are trying to increase their own citation rate.  Thirdly, the review is too generic to be of any use.

Reviewer 2 Report

The figure title given for figures 1,2,4 and 14 should contain only the expression describing the figure. Explanations about the figure should be given in the text.

In lines 105 and 140 tables have been given without table titles.

In lines 155 and 163, it is recommended to present the technical characteristics of the sensors in tabular form.

In lines 286, 294 321, and 352 there are carriage return misalignments.

In line 288, it is written that instantaneous data is received every minute, but it is stated as 0.02 Hz in parentheses. How can the frequency be 0.02 Hz if data is received once a minute?

The sentence was continued by going to a lower line without using the entire line 295.

In line 303, the continuation of the previous sentence preceded the figure text.

Lines 355-365 are left blank.

In line 406 there is carriage return misalignment.

Author Response

The figure title given for figures 1,2,4 and 14 should contain only the expression describing the figure. Explanations about the figure should be given in the text.

Rewritten Figure captions as:

Figure 1. Schematic of the emissions reporting system as setup on the RV Plymouth Quest for Trial 1.

Figure 2 – I believe there is only information describing the figure

Figure 4. Trial 1 - Spatial variability in RV Plymouth Quest emissions of A) SO2 (ppm); B) CO2 (% vol); C) NOx (ppm) and C) Fuel Sulphur Content (FSC - %).  Numbers on C) show the engine rpm for the different legs of the return journey.  Data presented using Ocean Data View.

Figure 14.  Red circles show position of successfully received exactSeNS S-AIS messages from a single voyage to 30 km offshore Plymouth by RV Plymouth Quest on 17 August 2021, with shading representing the “ratio_nox” (NOx/CO2).

In lines 105 and 140 tables have been given without table titles.

Table titles added:

Table 1. Concepts proved and themes demonstrated on Trial 1

Table 2. Concepts proved and themes demonstrated on Trials 2 and 3

In lines 155 and 163, it is recommended to present the technical characteristics of the sensors in tabular form.

Table 3 has now been added.

In line 288, it is written that instantaneous data is received every minute, but it is stated as 0.02 Hz in parentheses. How can the frequency be 0.02 Hz if data is received once a minute?

I have removed the 0.02 Hz in parentheses as that caused confusion as the reviewer rightly points out.  Data are recorded internally by the SEMS system at a rate of 0.02 Hz, but the data are only polled once per minute by the Raspberry Pi.

In lines 286, 294 321, and 352 there are carriage return misalignments.

The sentence was continued by going to a lower line without using the entire line 295.

In line 303, the continuation of the previous sentence preceded the figure text.

Lines 355-365 are left blank.

In line 406 there is carriage return misalignment.

I had grave difficulties with the formatting template.  I am hoping all of this can be rectified at the copy-editing stage.

Reviewer 3 Report

While the study is interesting and well-written, I have a few minor comments:

*The motivation of the study could benefit from being revised to make it clearer.

*Kindly rewrite the contribution of the study.

*Kindly enrich the introduction by citing the following studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106570

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00421-x

*It would be helpful if the authors could explain the economic logic behind their results.

*I suggest that the authors focus on writing policy recommendations that are based on their results 

Author Response

This is a tough review to respond to as there is little in the way of specifics to answer.

It is also difficult to add in the two papers the reviewer suggests as they don't seem particularly relevant.  Indeed they are from the same authors, so I am concerned they are just trying to increase their citation rates.

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors presented data from three field-campaigns which have significantly advanced the concept of onboard real-time monitoring of atmospheric ship emissions. Global concerns regarding air quality have over the past decade led to the introduction of regulations by the International Maritime Organization curbing the emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides (SOx, NOx). These limits have been implemented initially in so called ‘Emission Control Areas’, defined where the density of shipping activity combines with large coastal population centres such as north-west Europe or the eastern USA. Remarks: Manuscript should be better formatted according to the journal’s guidelines, eg. Line 320. What is the added value of the paper? More comments on the figures in the third section should be provided. Why the paper should be recommended? 

Author Response

This is a really tough review to respond to as there is no criticism of the specifics of the paper, just generics.

Why should the paper be recommended?  We articulate this in the Introduction:

"Our novel innovation is the integration of these technologies to telemeter real-time emission data from individual ships.  We believe that our approach has the potential for 100% coverage, will be scalable to the global ocean, and critically, be able to attribute emissions to individual ships."

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, it has been seen that the mentioned revisions have been completed.

Author Response

Many thanks for your constructive review

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your answer,

It is a pity the author(s) are unable to give satisfied and meaningful answers to the reviewer’s recommendations.

Still, the paper is formed in a negligent way, 

The impact of the proposed work will be more meaningful if it was written with much more care,

Please respect the writing instructions demanded by the editor

eg. put table captions above the tables,

and concerning the recommendation: 

The audience doesn't matter your belief, they want evidence.

"Our novel innovation is the integration of these technologies to telemeter real-time emission data from individual ships.  We believe that our approach has the potential for 100% coverage, will be scalable to the global ocean, and critically, be able to attribute emissions to individual ships."

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Many thanks for your review.

I have changed the sentence below to remove any reference to "belief":

"Our approach has the potential for 100% coverage, will be scalable to the global ocean, and critically, be able to attribute emissions to individual ships."

I have put table captions above the tables