Implementation of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea Using Coloured Petri Nets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) The article is recommended to modify Tongshun repeatedly, the words are accurate, the text is mentioned in the text, please explain which one is. The meaning of the picture in the article is blurred and difficult to understand.
(2) The full text is more like a software test manual, lacks academicity, the structure of the article is unclear, the organization does not meet the academic requirements, the main segments are not clear, and the conclusion does not have a clear result.
(3) Point 7 and points 9 are mentioned in the second section of the text. It is not clearly explained in the figure. It is recommended to add Figure 1 to explain it.
(4) Here, as the basis for avoiding bumps -predicting ship movements, the accuracy of the prediction is directly related to the quality of the entire touch mechanism. Is there a comparison method used in this article, discussing his accuracy and superiority? Supplement to the reliability assessment of prediction results.
(5) As mentioned earlier, the suggestion of avoiding the block is to change the direction. Consider? However, there is a saying that the decision -making suggestion module provides new route suggestions. In contradictions, explain clearly.
(6) In the article, the words of the ship are improperly used, and the concept is blurred. What does the word Crossing mean in the text and cross? Cross? Or? Chase? Please add explanation and sort out key concepts of the article.
(7) For Figure 3, is the motor ship mentioned here comprehensive? Are there any conditions? The text is not clear and the concept is blurred. How to consider the danger of collision in different types of two ships? It is only proposed in the article, but it is not elaborated. Does the avoidance mechanism proposed in the article not include different types of ships to meet? If you are not comprehensive, it is recommended to supplement the limited conditions or explain the comprehensive. "Vessels On RECIPROCAL or Nearly Reciprocal Courts" is a professional term: Right. Is the article considered inconsistent with the rules, so it is not used in professional terms that meet the rules. Can be explained clearly
(8) Section 4 Here it is mentioned in three types when color classification is divided into three types. Below is considered below, a ship engaged in laying and dredging ... (as a ship with restrictions on manipulation capabilities, it is incomplete.) The previous considerations are considered.) There are only two types of decision -making models, which are contradictory.
(9) Section 5.1 The types of ships mentioned in Section 5.1 are more comprehensive in the colors, but they do not correspond to the choice of ship types in the type of avoidance decision model proposed above.
(10) For the first time, MMSI, AIS and other professional terms, please write about his full name. There are many problems in the article, please add modification.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
(11) The English grammar and words of the full text are recommended to read the full text and re -consider it.
Author Response
We will use the English language service of MDPI.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Very well-written paper under methodology consideration. The introductory and methodological parts are well described.
2. The state-of-the-art part lacks a broader discussion of current ML algorithms for collision avoidance at sea.
3. The authors did not describe in an understandable way what results the model produces. Whether the results of the collision avoidance algorithm are useful and whether the units apply the laws of the road. There is no verification, no drawings describing collision situations, and no discussion of the results and their superiority over existing collision avoidance algorithms at sea.
4. There is a lack of discussion and conclusions. Some of the conclusions are very limited and do not present the right information in terms of the built model and its ability to solve the collision situation.
5. Whether the algorithm includes the ship's maneuvering characteristics and last-minute situation.
6. Whether the algorithm includes the ability to avoid collisions in terms of more than two ships.
7. How the algorithm behaves in the presence of obstacles and dangerous isobaths.
no major comments to language
Author Response
We will use the English language service of MDPI.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA paper examining an interesting research idea, but the mode of delivery and the roll out of text is creating a lot of confusion, especially for the non experienced reader. It is not appropriate to use only "own work" as refs for the whole introductory section (quality+number of refs in the whole paper must increase significantly) and there are a lot of issue without a clear description (framework of definitions is lacking)...
Would advise a major review in order to address the weaknesses highlighted in the attached pdf and then resubmit.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Various issues with terminology used and at the same time the text provided is suffering from clarity. I have highlighted various occasions where a rewrite is necessary to avoid the reader's confusion
Author Response
We will use the English language service of MDPI.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors (1) The English grammar and words of the full text need to be strengthened. It is recommended to read the full text and re -consider the writing of the article. (2) The logic of the article needs to be strengthened, and the expression of words is inaccurate. The graphs and tables in the article should be cited and explained in detail in the text. (3) The full text is more like a software test manual, lacks academic results: the structure of the article is not clear, the structure of the article does not meet the academic requirements, and the conclusion does not have a clear result. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe changes satisfy me. Thank you.
Author Response
Many thanks
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA version that is responding effectively to the vast majority of comments previously made. Language style is clearly improved and the flow of content is much better now. Would advise a minor revision dealing with the two following issues: 1. In page 2 (where "what" follows next is presented, i understand that sections 8 and 9 have now been removed; if this is correct there is a need for renumbering...
2. Number of Refs used in the text remains low and "own work" is a significant portion of that. In your final editing round would advise to expand the numbers of refs a little bit with emphasis on relevant items published during 2022/2023...
Good luck,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA clearly improved version, with very minimal effort will certainly reach the publishing stage...
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
