Seaport Resilience Analysis and Throughput Forecast Using a Deep Learning Approach: A Case Study of Busan Port

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes comprehensive methods for evaluating port resilience and throughput forecasting based on nonlinear time series analysis. While there is nothing wrong with these methods themselves, there is a gap between the title and the content of the paper. The current content focuses on forecasting methods but does not appear to provide an adequate analysis of resilience. It is necessary to either change the title or further deepen the analysis of resilience using results. Other comments are as follows.

 1. Contents that should be in Chapter 1 (e.g., objectives, novelty, etc.) are written in Chapter 2, which is difficult to read as the structure of the paper.

2. Resilience and sustainability are confused. Definitions of each should be clearer.

3. There are a number of sentences in the first paragraph of Chapter 1 that need to cite references.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers comments

 All reviewers: English language and style: Moderate English changes required

Answer: As pointed out by reviewers, we have made significant improvements on the manuscript thorough professional check, including language/grammar, as well as rewriting multiple sentences for better language formations. We have checked whole manuscript and made all necessary changes to bring the manuscript up to the highest standards of grammatical construct.

 Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes comprehensive methods for evaluating port resilience and throughput forecasting based on nonlinear time series analysis. While there is nothing wrong with these methods themselves, there is a gap between the title and the content of the paper. The current content focuses on forecasting methods but does not appear to provide an adequate analysis of resilience. It is necessary to either change the title or further deepen the analysis of resilience using results.

Answer: Thank you for your recognition of our work. We have carefully revised the paper according to your valuable comments. Furthermore, resilience analysis and explanation have been added to the revised manuscript.

Q1. Contents that should be in Chapter 1 (e.g., objectives, novelty, etc.) are written in Chapter 2, which is difficult to read as the structure of the paper.

Answer: Thank you very much for the careful review. Chapters 1 and 2 have been carefully edited, and some contents of Chapter 2 has been moved to Chapter 1 to make the structure of the paper clearer.

Q2. Resilience and sustainability are confused. Definitions of each should be clearer.

Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, definitions with explanations have been now clarified in the second and third paragraphs of Chapter 1.

Q3. There are a number of sentences in the first paragraph of Chapter 1 that need to cite references.

Answer: According to the reviewer's comment, we have double checked and cited references in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

1. the necessity of hybird method could be more described.

2. the content of resilience analysis can be more added. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers comments

 All reviewers: English language and style: Moderate English changes required

Answer: As pointed out by reviewers, we have made significant improvements on the manuscript thorough professional check, including language/grammar, as well as rewriting multiple sentences for better language formations. We have checked whole manuscript and made all necessary changes to bring the manuscript up to the highest standards of grammatical construct.

 Reviewer #2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Q1. The necessity of hybrid method could be more described.

Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, the necessity of hybrid method has been additionally described for clarity in the first paragraph of Section 4.3.

Q2. The content of resilience analysis can be more added.

Answer: Even though there are no universal formula for building resilience in port operations, we have done our best to improve the content of the resilience analysis in the revised paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper discusses an interesting topic “Seaport productivity and resilience analysis using deep learning approach: A case study of Busan port”. This paper should be revised as per the below comments to be published.

 

·         The results should be better described in the abstract. For example, how and why this study needs to be investigated?

·         Tell the reader what you have done in the abstract.

·         Explain "how" you have done it in the abstract.

·         Why is this model preferred over other methods in the abstract?

·         In the Introduction, what are the innovations of this paper, please explain the motivation and the innovation of this paper in a scientific way.

·         The introduction section needs revisions so as to be written more coherently and concisely.

· One or two paragraphs must be added to investigate more about the machine and deep learning techniques. Thus, the papers listed below should be added to the Literature review section:

 https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFM-10-2021-0129/full/html

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12222

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12047

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11998

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11786

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=22qodHAAAAAJ&citation_for_view=22qodHAAAAAJ:WF5omc3nYNoC

  ·         The limitations of the methodology and results need substantial improvement for the paper to have an impact on research and practice.

·         It is suggested to authors that a detailed section about the dataset extracted should be added under these sections. These sections should clearly explore different features in the dataset, target variable, correlation between features and target variable, and sample size for the dataset with some statistics (e.g., mean, median, max, min).

·         It is recommended that you add the practical and theoretical implications section, and how this model would enhance decision-making.

·         The results of your comparative study should be discussed in-depth and with more insightful comments on the behavior of your results in various case studies.

·         This manuscript will be ready for publication if the comments raised are processed.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers comments

 All reviewers: English language and style: Moderate English changes required

Answer: As pointed out by reviewers, we have made significant improvements on the manuscript thorough professional check, including language/grammar, as well as rewriting multiple sentences for better language formations. We have checked whole manuscript and made all necessary changes to bring the manuscript up to the highest standards of grammatical construct.

 

Reviewer #3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses an interesting topic “Seaport productivity and resilience analysis using deep learning approach: A case study of Busan port”. This paper should be revised as per the below comments to be published.

Q1. The results should be better described in the abstract. For example, how and why this study needs to be investigated? Tell the reader what you have done in the abstract. Explain "how" you have done it in the abstract. Why is this model preferred over other methods in the abstract?.

Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, we have rewritten the abstract to provide more information on the results. Besides, we have provided the reasons for choosing the proposed algorithm over other algorithms.

Q2. In the Introduction, what are the innovations of this paper, please explain the motivation and the innovation of this paper in a scientific way.

Answer: According to the reviewer's comment, we have added several paragraphs in the Introduction to explain the motivation with the innovation of this paper in a logical way.

Q3. The introduction section needs revisions so as to be written more coherently and concisely.

Answer: Thank you for valuable comments, we have revised the Introduction to highlight this study more concisely.

Q4. One or two paragraphs must be added to investigate more about the machine and deep learning techniques. Thus, the papers listed below should be added to the Literature review section:

 https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFM-10-2021-0129/full/html

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12222

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12047

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11998

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11786

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=22qodHAAAAAJ&citation_for_view=22qodHAAAAAJ:WF5omc3nYNoC

Answer: As suggested, we have added new paragraphs to Section 2.2 to provide more information on the machine and deep learning techniques. The suggested references have been added in the Literature review section.

Q5. The limitations of the methodology and results need substantial improvement for the paper to have an impact on research and practice.

Answer: As mentioned in the test results, all the evaluations indicate that the proposed method outperforms all benchmarking models used in the paper for both long- and short-term prediction. The proposed hybrid algorithm is the top-performing strategy employing all the metrics at a 95% confidence level. Besides, some limitations have been addressed for further research in Conclusion.

Q6. It is suggested to authors that a detailed section about the dataset extracted should be added under these sections. These sections should clearly explore different features in the dataset, target variable, correlation between features and target variable, and sample size for the dataset with some statistics (e.g., mean, median, max, min)..

Answer: As suggested, we have revised the Section 5.1 to explore the training and testing dataset with some statistics.

Q7. It is recommended that you add the practical and theoretical implications section, and how this model would enhance decision-making.

Answer: As pointed out, practical and theoretical implications as well as managerial insights have been presented in the Discussion section and Conclusions for enhancing decision-making process (Section 6).

Q8. The results of your comparative study should be discussed in-depth and with more insightful comments on the behavior of your results in various case studies.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised the empirical testing results, Discussion and Conclusion section for offering in-depth and with more insightful explanation on the test results by considering different scenario, compared with other benchmark methods and validated by significant tests.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The content is fine, but shouldn't the title still be changed to focus primarily on forecasting methods?

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content is fine, but shouldn't the title still be changed to focus primarily on forecasting methods?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. The title is now changed to “Seaport resilience analysis and throughput forecast using deep learning approach: A case study of Busan port” to focus primarily on analysis and forecasting methods.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has substantially improved. However, I do suggest the following minor modifications. 

1) Adding the research question(s) explicitly at the end of the introduction section.  

2) Adding the following suggested references to reflect the new manuscript updates.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9080883

https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10020048

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159303

3) Another round of manuscript proofreading will be beneficial. 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers comments

Reviewer #3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has substantially improved. However, I do suggest the following minor modifications.

Q1. Adding the research question(s) explicitly at the end of the introduction section.

Answer: As the reviewer’s suggestion, the research questions have been added in the introduction section.

Q2. Adding the following suggested references to reflect the new manuscript updates.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9080883

https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10020048

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159303

Answer: For the new manuscript updates, we have added the suggested references in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc