Potential Liability Issues of AI-Based Embedded Software in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships for Maritime Safety in the Korean Maritime Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research addresses the AI software in MASS for maritime safety from the perspectives of UK and Korean product liability laws, which is an interesting topic. However, several issues might need to be considered:

1. In the Introduction, there is no justification for the importance of AI-based embedded software in MASS.
2. Figure 2, the five research questions are not described as a question style and is a bit confusing.
3. Page 4, line 119-120 is repeating from line 112-113
4. Page 4, some more papers can improve the description of the research in MASS, for example:

• Chang, C. H., Kontovas, C., Yu, Q., & Yang, Z. (2021). Risk assessment of the operations of maritime autonomous surface ships. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 207, 107324.
• Fan, C., Wróbel, K., Montewka, J., Gil, M., Wan, C., & Zhang, D. (2020). A framework to identify factors influencing navigational risk for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships. Ocean Engineering, 202, 107188.
• Ramos, M. A., Utne, I. B., & Mosleh, A. (2019). Collision avoidance on maritime autonomous surface ships: Operators’ tasks and human failure events. Safety Science, 116, 33-44.
• IMO has several important documents related to MASS that should also be reviewed, e.g. MSC.1/Circ.1604, etc.

5. Page 4, line 44 the citing is different to others
6. Figure 3 the Korea case study side is not fully presented.
7. Some confusing numbering in Section 3, e.g. 3. 1.1, 4.   3.1.2, etc.

Author Response

Many thanks for your valuable comments. We believe that your comment should make our study more academically meaningful. 

Comment 1: In the Introduction, there is no justification for the importance of AI-based embedded software in MASS.

• Answer: We added ‘importance of AI-based embedded software’ in the Introduction.

Comment 2: Figure 2, the five research questions are not described as a question style and is a bit confusing.

•  Answer: We changed the form of research questions to question style.

Comment 3: Page 4, line 119-120 is repeating from line 112-113

• Answer: We revised them so that there are no repetitive sentences overall.

Comment 4: Page 4, some more papers can improve the description of the research in MASS, for example:

• Answer: We revised literature review, including the studies you recommended.

Comment 5: Page 4, line 44 the citing is different to others

• Answer: We corrected its citation.

Comment 6: Figure 3 the Korea case study side is not fully presented.

• Answer: We corrected Figure 3.

Comment 7: Some confusing numbering in Section 3, e.g. 3. 1.1, 4.   3.1.2, etc.

• Answer: We corrected the numbering of sections

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented manuscript discusses an important and under-investigated aspect of prospective operations of autonomous merchant vessels. It is a good contribution, but requires some polishing as per below comments.

Line 34-37: IMO has nominated four 'degrees' rather than 'levels', please keep the nomenclature consistent here and elsewhere along the text;

Line 45-47 Authors can also refer to doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.03.029 for further elaboration on the potential outcomes of maritime accidents involving autonomous vessels;

Figure 2: RQs are not really questions within this Figure, but more of a statements;

Line 120: additional references are needed to support this statement;

Figure 3 appears to not fit into the template of the manuscript on its star-board side, please correct;

Sections 3.1.2. and forward appear to be mis-numbered, please check and correct;

Figure 4: numerous typos within, including 'oprator', also strange to not see "P&I Club" in it;

Moreover, the manuscript would benefit from linking its narrative (at least by mentioning) to international conventions on liability limitations, marine insurance, etc.

By this, I recommend that the paper be accepted following a minor revision.

Author Response

Many thanks for your valuable comments. We believe that your comment should make our study more academically meaningful.

Comment 1: Line 34-37: IMO has nominated four 'degrees' rather than 'levels', please keep the nomenclature consistent here and elsewhere along the text;

•  Answer : We changed the word to ‘degrees’.

Comment 2: Line 45-47 Authors can also refer to doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.03.029 for further elaboration on the potential outcomes of maritime accidents involving autonomous vessels;

• Answer : We added the paper you recommended.

Comment 3: Figure 2: RQs are not really questions within this Figure, but more of a statements;

• Answer : We changed the form of research questions to question style.

Comment 4: Line 120: additional references are needed to support this statement;

• Answer : We revised literature review, especially the parts you pointed out.

Comment 5: Figure 3 appears to not fit into the template of the manuscript on its star-board side, please correct;

• Answer : We corrected Figure 3

Comment 6: Sections 3.1.2. and forward appear to be mis-numbered, please check and correct;

• Answer : We corrected the numbering of sections

Comment 7: Figure 4: numerous typos within, including 'oprator', also strange to not see "P&I Club" in it;

• Answer : We corrected Figure 4 including Operators and Insurer.

Comment 8: Moreover, the manuscript would benefit from linking its narrative (at least by mentioning) to international conventions on liability limitations, marine insurance, etc.

• Answer : We strongly agreed with your comment. In the conclusion section, we added some more expectations involving the paper’s contribution to the amendment of international conventions and marine insurance agreements in the future.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf