Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Symbol “.” should be avoided in title. You may change the first “.” To “:” and delete the second one.

 

Introduction: the problem to be solved in this study should be clearly stated and presented in this section. At the moment, the studied problem is quite unclear.

The format of presenting of COVID-19 should be uniform throughout the paper: it is “Covid19” in the abstract, while “COVID 19” in the Introduction and “COVID-19” in the second section.

 

More related scientific research published in academic journals should be covered in “2. State of the Art” instead of the technical terms only.

 

More scientific presentation should be used to used to describe the methodology used in this study as well as the results.

 

Limitations of the current research and future research should be added in the conclusion chapter.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your comments.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper introduces a method to minimize COVID risk in cruise ports. The topic is very interesting. It can, however be further improved by addressing the following major issues:

Major issues

·       While the literature overview generally is good, some important elements of the recent state of the art are missed, which would, however (significantly?) improve your method. There should be more references to recent advances here, for instance, by adding a discussion (which is missing in the paper altogether). I refer specifically to these articles regarding ‘COVID risk in maritime domain’ or ‘the impact of COVID on maritime’. Such as 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104768; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106377; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052516; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100328.

·       The contributions of the paper should also be clearly and briefly mentioned in the introduction section also, identifying the gaps in the existing literature. It is not clear how the proposed method will improve state of the art: what gap is filled?

·       The method is not clear to readers. The method also should be further elaborated on and explained in the paper.

 

·       Please discuss how to validate the results.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your comments.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. I therefore recommend accepting.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has been greatly improved. The authors have addressed all of my concerns, and I am happy to recommend the manuscript for publication.