Green Ports Analysis Using an End-to-End Tool Application in the Fishing Port of Vigo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank your for your article. The case is interesting, but the presentation in its present level does not reach to level of academic publishing. 

In short, the article lacks literature review of the development of ports. In addition, no clear scientific problem has been stated. And therefore, it is not clearly seen, what is the result that the study gives an answer.

Pls. make a thorough analysis of port develpment literature, and state clear research question to which your case gives an solution. Try then again.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

CHANGES TO R1 ARE IN BLUE IN THE DOCUMENT

 

Dear authors,

Thank your for your article. The case is interesting, but the presentation in its present level does not reach to level of academic publishing. 

In short, the article lacks literature review of the development of ports. In addition, no clear scientific problem has been stated. And therefore, it is not clearly seen, what is the result that the study gives an answer.

Pls. make a thorough analysis of port develpment literature, and state clear research question to which your case gives an solution. Try then again.

All the issues raised by the reviewer have been expanded upon in the document.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal's attention. This study attempts to carry out the analysis of a specific case within the Spanish port system: the Fishing Port of Vigo. Employing the End to End Tool and within the framework of the Green Ports developed by the European Commission, this paper identified that the future scenario in the short term could reach 50%, and 80% for a long-term compared to the theoretically perfect Green Port situation. Overall, the paper is well written and well structured, therefore it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. Generally well written but requires some editing and revision.

 

1) In literature review, this study well reviewed prior research on evolution from Ports 4.0 to Green Ports, Situation analysis of outstanding ports in the world and in Spain, and New planning tools. However, to develop hypothesis, this study is required further literature reviews on the relevant topics such as the character of fishing ports and requirements, and demands to present theoretical supports.

 

2) Research design and, data analysis method are appropriate. Justification of variables employment would be explained, additionally.

 

The processes for data analysis are appropriate and the results of it are clearly described. However, to improve the quality of this study, author(s) need to extract more clear implications in both theoretical and practical perspectives as a discussion of the results. Additional explanations are required to link the results of data analysis and conclusions. Research conclusion (practical implication) part is weak, focusing on data analysis (enumerate bits of information). Additional explanations incorporating theoretical and practical are required.

 

The quality of communication is appropriate. Generally, well written but requires some editing and revision.

 

Generally well written but requires some editing and revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

CHANGES TO R2 ARE IN YELLOW IN THE DOCUMENT

 

 

This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal's attention. This study attempts to carry out the analysis of a specific case within the Spanish port system: the Fishing Port of Vigo. Employing the End to End Tool and within the framework of the Green Ports developed by the European Commission, this paper identified that the future scenario in the short term could reach 50%, and 80% for a long-term compared to the theoretically perfect Green Port situation. Overall, the paper is well written and well structured, therefore it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. Generally well written but requires some editing and revision. 

 

1) In literature review, this study well reviewed prior research on evolution from Ports 4.0 to Green Ports, Situation analysis of outstanding ports in the world and in Spain, and New planning tools. However, to develop hypothesis, this study is required further literature reviews on the relevant topics such as the character of fishing ports and requirements, and demands to present theoretical supports. 

The state of the art has been extended, in particular in section 2.2.

2) Research design and, data analysis method are appropriate. Justification of variables employment would be explained, additionally. 

The processes for data analysis are appropriate and the results of it are clearly described. However, to improve the quality of this study, author(s) need to extract more clear implications in both theoretical and practical perspectives as a discussion of the results. Additional explanations are required to link the results of data analysis and conclusions. Research conclusion (practical implication) part is weak, focusing on data analysis (enumerate bits of information). Additional explanations incorporating theoretical and practical are required. 

The quality of communication is appropriate. Generally, well written but requires some editing and revision.

 

Section 3.2.1. Selection of study variables includes the description of the selection of variables.In the section on data analysis, all the wording has been completed in accordance with the reviewer's indications for improvement.

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the paper is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the paper lacks some basic elements, such as a literature review, discussion, future research directions, etc. The paper looks more like a deliverable or a project report than a scientific paper. It does not provide any meaningful scientific contribution. The used methodology is not novel nor original. The aim of the paper is unclear, as well as the significance of the obtained results. The detailed comments are listed below.

1.     The Abstract is not written well. The authors did not shortly explain the used method, nor the reasons for using it. The authors presented the results as a conclusion. They should have provided a conclusion based on the results they presented. In addition, the authors did not highlight what is the main contribution of their paper.

2.     The aim of the paper indicated in the abstract and introduction is very unclear. The authors stated that the aim is to „carry out an analysis of a specific case within the Spanish port system“, but what is the aim of investigating this or any other port system? The authors did not provide relevant research questions. What are the purpose and significance of the work? What are the hypotheses?

3.     The introduction is not written well. In addition to the vaguely defined aim, the authors did not provide main conclusions, nor indicated the main scientific contributions of the paper. Also, there should be a brief overview of the following sections at the end of the introduction. This is not mandatory but is considered a standard in academic writing.

4.     The paper does not provide any meaningful scientific contribution. The used method is already well known and used in other research. A simple application of an already established methodology can hardly be seen as a contribution.

5.     The paper lacks a proper literature review. The authors did not support the main idea of the paper with the review of the relevant literature nor identified research gaps in the areas covered by this paper. One of the main motives for the literature review is the identification of the gaps which have not been covered in previous research, and which the authors would have tried to cover within their paper.

6.     Why is important to investigate one port? What general conclusions or broader scientific significance could be drawn from a single case study? A case study could serve to prove a theory or to demonstrate the applicability of newly established methodologies, but this paper provides none of that.

7.     The source of data is unclear. For example, the authors state that the „assignment of weights and values below has been done by a panel of experts“, but provide no information on these experts. How many were there? What are their background and expertise? How are they selected? In addition, the authors do not provide any data collected in this way.

8.     The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research, when compared with the existing and studied literature. The discussion should also highlight the limitations of the work, as well as theoretical and practical implications.

9.     The paper does not provide any future research directions. Future research directions of the study (paper) should explain how could the work presented in this paper be continued, i.e. how can the results or insights of this paper be used to provide the basis for some future research.

10.  Figure 1 is unnecesarry. It does not provide any meaningful information relevant to the research. The same applies to Figure 4. Was it necessary for Figure 5 to be in a form of a figure?

11.  There are certain technical errors:

a)     References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors. Please carefully read the instructions and correct the references.

b)    References [9], [10], and [27] do not list all the authors of the papers.

c)     Volume number is missing for the reference [31].

d)    Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. For example, ID (in Table 1) is not defined.

Author Response

I attach the response to the reviewer.

Thanks very much for the comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

Thank you very much for your review. The study has improved a lot. It is now much more clear how the tool has been developed and what are the aims of it.

However, there is still not adequately discussed, that if tool actually measures what it is said to measure. The indicators are developed by a group of experts, but how are the indicators validated? How can we be sure, that the tool actually measures what it says it measures?

Pls. add separate discussion about the validity of the results and how this should be improved in future studies. And what type of problems there might be, as the indicators may not be valid.

Author Response

We very much appreciate the reviewer's comments.  Please find attached the requested comments. Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made an exceptional effort to address all issues identified in the previous review round and beyond. They have significantly improved the quality of their paper. They introduced a substantial amount of new material and additionally explained the previously present material thus making the paper much more understandable. I suggest the acceptance of the paper in its present form. All praise to the authors!

Author Response

We very much appreciate the reviewer's comments. Thanks very much for your comments. Best regards