The Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Aid to Assess Transport Policy Measures Focusing on Innovation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulation authors for the very good research paper "The application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Aid to assess policy measures focusing on innovation". Several comments for the improvement the presented manuscript is presented follow:
The innovation aspects can be more exactly appraisal with a definition and application in this presented field.
The classification of the Multiple Criteria Decision Aid methodologies must be presented as schematic model (graphical analysis or Figure) section 2. "Method".
Not only presented methodology can be presented in this research. Will be great if the authors presented more methods with a different methods and presented some comparison the results.
The formulas in the manuscript can be more correctly presented.
In the Fig. 1. Sensitivity of the group of criteria for weight changes, (a) functional; (b) social; (c) economic; (d) environmental must be presented values of the calculation not only graphical view of the results.
In the manuscript must be used the newly literature reference on 2018-2019 year of the presented topic and problem.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer are added as an additional file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The proposed study has enough quality to be published in Sustainability magazine. It seems to be the result of a European project, has a solid methodological base and offers interesting contributions.
However, four issues are listed that must be improved or corrected to ensure publication of the text.
The first, in the title should appear the word transport. It is the subject to which the investigation refers and it can not be ignored as in this presented version.
The second, the introduction is very generic. The research topic should be better defined. Also the wording of the discussion section is too generic. Specify what it is about contributing.
Third. The discussion section is very descriptive, it is accompanied by many data that are not well commented or explained. It must be reformulated and made clearer. Avoid an excess of quantitative information and little analysis.
The fourth. They lack a coclusions. This is essential.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer are added as an additional file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the paper is well structured and articulated. Two specific empirical remarks are however in order:
Firstly, there is no a slight hint to how possibly Brexit might affect, if at all, the outcomes of the research and the future, post-Brexit, use of the method proposed in the article. Namely, on the one hand, as authors themselves assert in the introduction, '[t]ransport is one of the strategic sectors of the economy, which covers several areas, including: economic, political or tourist in the international, national and regional dimensions. It is one of the determinants of the competitiveness of the European market and as one of the sectors of the economy is subject to legal Community regulations' (at 27-30).
On the other hand, Brexit will surely affect such sectors as transport, tourism, student and workers mobility, as well as the general free movement of persons. Whether the no-deal or the deal scenario, it will immensely affect the above sectors.
Therefore, I reckon that, even if the authors' main focus is on the method itself, while policy is rather the background discussion, such fundamental shifts in the Union's market and economic, legal and political, transport and tourist dimensions as Brexit deserve to be considered, or, at least, briefly mentioned.
Secondly, and importantly, as the authors rightly point, the 2020 Strategy published in 2010 is the basis for innovation growth programmes within the European Union (see e.g. at 41-42 of the paper). However, in early February 2019 the €120bn new innovation policy project, Horizon Europe, passed the initial stage at the EU Parliament. Namely, it was approved by the Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee. If overall approved by the EU Parliament and the governments of European member States, the strategy will duly become the new basis for innovation growth programmes within the EU. I estimate that this is an important empirical update to take into account. I suggest, the authors reconsider some of their findings taking into account the new figures and data from the policy proposal, or, at least, they expressly mention the upcoming new EU legal and political basis for the innovation in their introduction. That would surely not harm, but add value to the article, showing its empirical up-to-date awareness and coherence.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer are added as an additional file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision has been profound. It has been done satisfactorily.
Now, it is recommended to publish the text.