Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Changes in Carbon Sequestration from Opencast Mining Activities and Land Reclamation in China’s Loess Plateau
Next Article in Special Issue
A Novel Hybrid Evolutionary Data-Intelligence Algorithm for Irrigation and Power Production Management: Application to Multi-Purpose Reservoir Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Decision-Making of Renewable Energy Systems in Buildings in the Early Design Stage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Criteria for Selecting Proposed Variants of Utility Functions in the Adaptation of Historic Regional Architecture
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Aid to Assess Transport Policy Measures Focusing on Innovation

Sustainability 2019, 11(5), 1472; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051472
by Katarzyna Nosal Hoy, Katarzyna Solecka and Andrzej Szarata *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2019, 11(5), 1472; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051472
Submission received: 5 February 2019 / Revised: 26 February 2019 / Accepted: 6 March 2019 / Published: 10 March 2019

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.

Back to TopTop