Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General assessment: The article has been carefully and clearly prepared. The text is based on reliable data and thorough analysis, accurately reflecting the actual conditions of navigation on the Vistula River.
The work is characterized by a good triangulation of sources (hydrological, operational, and administrative data) and presents a convincing argument concerning infrastructural and environmental constraints. The authors skillfully combine the perspectives of both freight and tourist navigation, giving the study a comprehensive and applied character.

Suggestion: To deepen the analysis, I suggest adding a comparative chart of the hydrological regime and the operation of the Włocławek Barrage, presenting: daily water levels at the Włocławek gauge station for a wet year (e.g., 2010) and a dry year (e.g., 2015), overlaid with the number of lock operations at the Włocławek Barrage (as a secondary axis). Such a chart would clearly illustrate the impact of hydrological variability on navigation intensity (both freight and tourism). Visualizing these relationships would strengthen the argument that hydrology is the main driver determining navigation conditions on the Vistula River.

I recommend accepting the article for publication after minor revisions, including the addition of the suggested comparative chart. Once revised, the article will significantly contribute to the discussion on the strategic role of hydrological factors in shaping the accessibility and efficiency of navigation on the Vistula River.

Author Response

Dear Professor and Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and your kindness. We really appreciate them.

Your suggestion: ”To deepen the analysis, I suggest adding a comparative chart of the hydrological regime and the operation of the Włocławek Barrage, presenting: daily water levels at the Włocławek gauge station for a wet year (e.g., 2010) and a dry year (e.g., 2015), overlaid with the number of lock operations at the Włocławek Barrage (as a secondary axis). Such a chart would clearly illustrate the impact of hydrological variability on navigation intensity (both freight and tourism). Visualizing these relationships would strengthen the argument that hydrology is the main driver determining navigation conditions on the Vistula River.”

We gladly answered your suggestion and we included the requested information. You may see it at page no. 20 (graphs and explanations). With pink colour we marked the new paragraphs.

Actually we made more changes in our article and we hope that you will be so kind and tell us your opinion about them. Yellow colour has been used for information regarding the climate change/ scenarios and hydrological conditions. Blue/ turquoise colour marks the information about TEN-T, AGN and RIS European projects. Green colour was intended to show the connection between the freight declining and its constraints (economy, management, infrastructure).

Thank you again for your efforts and kindness!

 

Best regards!

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The graphic abstract is not appropriate at all. The introduction of the article is long and lacks a proper framework The diagrams are too distracting and are not appropriate for this type of article. This article is a kind of review of previous studies, which is not up to this type of journal. The innovation of the article is weak. There is no specific idea about the solutions I do not consider the topic of this article to be very suitable for this journal and I suggest another journal in this regard. The limitations should be explained in the discussion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor and Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you very much for your comments.

Your opinion: ”The graphic abstract is not appropriate at all.” With all due respect, we consider it suggestive, but if the academic editor or editor-in-chief decides, we may eliminate it.

Your opinion: ”The introduction of the article is long and lacks a proper framework”. Actually we added one more paragraph in Introduction, marked with pink colour. The introduction is one page and a half. With all respect, the introduction of the article described the framework and the context/ background of our review work and also the reasons behind our work (Poland, inland navigation, Vistula). We mentioned the purpose of our review and reported briefly how we proceeded.   

Your opinion: ”The diagrams are too distracting and are not appropriate for this type of article”. With no disrespect intended, we consider our graphical work adequate and appropriate for the article.

Your opinion: ”This article is a kind of review of previous studies, which is not up to this type of journal. The innovation of the article is weak.” Dear Professor, this article is a REVIEW! Water Journal publishes reviews. A scientific review is a comprehensive work of previously published research on a certain topic! A review does not present any ”innovation”, any new result!

Your opinion: ”There is no specific idea about the solutions I do not consider the topic of this article to be very suitable for this journal and I suggest another journal in this regard.” Without wishing to cause offence, I remind you that you can find the solutions in Chapter 5 Discussions, but different solution ideas can be found in all chapters. We think our review is very suitable for Water Journal, but in the end the editors will decide.

Your suggestion: ”The limitations should be explained in the discussion section.” You may see in pink a paragraph discussing the limitations in Chapter 5.

Actually we made more changes in our article. With pink colour we marked the new paragraphs. Yellow colour has been used for information regarding the climate change/ scenarios and hydrological conditions. Blue/ turquoise colour marks the information about TEN-T, AGN and RIS European projects. Green colour was intended to show the connection between the freight declining and its constraints (economy, management, infrastructure).

Regarding the English used in this review, if the academic editor or editor-in-chief consider it appropriate, we can submit our work to the English Service belonging to Water Journal.

Thank you again for your comments!

Best regards!

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper systematically reviews the current situation of inland waterways in Poland, especially the navigation conditions and usage of the Lower Vistwa River section.    By combining hydrological data and lock passage records, it analyzes the changing trends of freight and tourism shipping and their relationship with hydrological conditions.    The research data is detailed, the methods are reasonable, and it has a good empirical foundation.    The thesis has certain innovation and practical value.
In my opinion, this is a good job.   Meanwhile, I suggest the author can supplement it from the following aspects.
1.   The research design and methods are relatively rigorous, but lack forward-looking analysis of climate scenarios.    It is suggested to supplement the predictive analysis of future hydrological conditions to enhance the assessment of shipping sustainability.
2.    The paper mentions the EU's inland waterway transport policy, but does not delve into how Poland specifically aligns with EU strategies such as the TEN-T network and the AGN agreement.    It is suggested to supplement the analysis of the connection between the EU policy tools and the Polish national plan.
3.    The paper points out that the volume of freight has been continuously declining, but the analysis of the multiple factors behind it, such as the economy, management, and infrastructure, is not systematic enough.    It is suggested to explore the deeper constraints by combining interviews or policy text analysis.
4.    The conclusion section is a bit lengthy and repetitive with the previous text.    It is suggested to simplify it and highlight the key policy recommendations.
5.    It is suggested that the explanation of the research limitations be strengthened in the "Discussion" section.

Author Response

Dear Professor and Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We really appreciate them.

Your suggestion: ”The research design and methods are relatively rigorous, but lack forward-looking analysis of climate scenarios. It is suggested to supplement the predictive analysis of future hydrological conditions to enhance the assessment of shipping sustainability.” With all due respect, we have already addressed these topics, but we have added new additions. We have used yellow colour for information regarding the climate change/ scenarios and hydrological conditions.

Your suggestion: ”The paper mentions the EU's inland waterway transport policy, but does not delve into how Poland specifically aligns with EU strategies such as the TEN-T network and the AGN agreement. It is suggested to supplement the analysis of the connection between the EU policy tools and the Polish national plan.” We have included some information in our review, but we added some more. Thank you! Blue/ turquoise colour marks the information about TEN-T, AGN and RIS European projects.

Your suggestion: ”The paper points out that the volume of freight has been continuously declining, but the analysis of the multiple factors behind it, such as the economy, management, and infrastructure, is not systematic enough. It is suggested to explore the deeper constraints by combining interviews or policy text analysis.” We referred to these aspects in our review, but we have supplemented them with new information. Thank you again! Green colour was intended to show the connection between the freight declining and its constraints (economy, management, infrastructure).

Your suggestion: ”The conclusion section is a bit lengthy and repetitive with the previous text. It is suggested to simplify it and highlight the key policy recommendations.” We have changed/ simplified the chapter of conclusions.

Your suggestion: ”It is suggested that the explanation of the research limitations be strengthened in the "Discussion" section”. You may see in pink a paragraph discussing the limitations in Chapter 5. With pink colour we marked the new paragraphs.

We gladly answered your suggestion and we included the requested information. Actually we made more changes (including new graphs) in our article and we hope that you will be so kind and tell us your opinion about them.

Thank you again for your efforts and kindness!

 

Best regards!

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comment