Transportation Disaster Trends and Impacts in Western Asia: A Comprehensive Analysis from 2003 to 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors analyze transportation disasters in Western Asia over two decades (2003-2023). The manuscript is well organized, and the results enrich the existing theoretical research models and have certain theoretical meaning. Therefore, I think the paper can be accepted. In addition, the following are the few comments, which may be included while revision.

 

1. What is the difference between it and transportation accidents ? What is transportation disaster ? What is its definition and scope ? The author should first introduce this concept to the reader.

2. Lines 63-67, “our inquiry aims to unravel the intricate patterns, causal factors, and overarching trends [8]...”, this paper is just a simple statistical analysis, the objective is too large.

3. Line 114, “a total of 160 incidents were meticulously documented...” Nearly 20 countries have only 160 data in 20 years, why is there so little data?

4. Lines 132-134, “Augmented efforts to bolster infrastructure, refine safety regulations, and foster a pervasive culture of safety consciousness among the public are of paramount importance.” These measures are too general, not targeted and of little significance. Each country's situation is different, and the authors should propose measures tailored to the characteristics of each country's transportation disaster pattern, rather than making such generalization. This similar problem also exists in the analysis of section 3.2.

5. Lines 153-154, “This realization underscores the critical need for intensified scrutiny and targeted interventions on the roadways to curb these statistics”. Authors should give specific initiatives, not generalizations. Similarly, Line 158, “possible environmental factors contributing to these mishaps.” What are the specific environmental factors?

6. Line 274, “The analysis revealed a Type III Sum of Squares of 6361.222,”  what is the Type III ?

7. The innovation of the paper is low, only simple statistics, the amount of data is very small and the conclusion is very general, not targeted.

8. Section 3.6 gives some data obtained by statistical analysis. The author should emphasize the practical significance of these statistical data in the analysis, rather than just statistical data.

9. The list of references should be extended to include some recent papers as follow.

1) An exact solution approach for multi-objective location–transportation problem for disaster response.Computers & Operations Research, 2014, 41(1):83-93.DOI:10.1016/j.cor.2013.08.001.

2) A multivalue cellular automata model for multilane traffic flow under lagrange coordinate.Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09345-w

10. 

3) Reliable Transportation of Humanitarian Supplies in Disaster Response: Model and Heuristic.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.835.

4) A Two-Stage Approach for Medical Supplies Intermodal Transportation in Large-Scale Disaster Responses.International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 2014, 11(11):11081.DOI:10.3390/ijerph111111081.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in providing feedback on our manuscript. Your insights are crucial for enhancing the quality and breadth of our work. Here's our point-by-point response to your comments:

• Reviewer Comment: What is the difference between it and transportation accidents? What is transportation disaster?

  Response: Thank you for raising this foundational query. We have incorporated a clear definition and distinction between 'transportation accidents' and 'transportation disasters' at the outset of our paper. In essence, while accidents might be commonplace, minor, or isolated events, disasters often have a larger scope, leading to significant human and property losses and requiring major intervention.

• Reviewer Comment: Lines 63-67, this paper is just a simple statistical analysis, the objective is too large.

  Response: We recognize your concern. In light of this, we've revised the objectives to better align with the scope of our study, emphasizing the statistical approach we've employed while managing expectations regarding the depth of our inquiry.

• Reviewer Comment: Line 114, “a total of 160 incidents were meticulously documented...” Nearly 20 countries have only 160 data in 20 years, why is there so little data?

  Response: We appreciate your observation regarding the data count. Our research relied exclusively on the EM-DAT database, which records significant transportation disasters, not every minor accident. The criterion for inclusion in this database emphasizes events with substantial impact in terms of human and/or property loss. As such, the 160 incidents represent the major transportation disasters in the region over the two-decade span. We believe that analyzing this focused dataset offers valuable insights into the most consequential events, allowing for a targeted exploration of impactful disasters. While there may be many more minor accidents occurring, our study aimed to concentrate on these significant events to draw meaningful conclusions and provide actionable recommendations.

• Reviewer Comment: Lines 132-134, these measures are too general.

  Response: We are grateful for your critique. We've worked on refining our recommendations, providing country-specific insights where possible and linking the general strategies to tangible examples that demonstrate their relevance.

• Reviewer Comment: Lines 153-154 and Line 158, Authors should give specific initiatives, not generalizations.

  Response: Based on your feedback, we've supplemented these lines with more concrete examples and detailed initiatives. Additionally, we've expanded on potential environmental factors that might contribute to these mishaps.

• Reviewer Comment: Line 274, “The analysis revealed a Type III Sum of Squares of 6361.222,” what is the Type III?

  Response: Thank you for noting this. We've now provided an explanation of Type III Sum of Squares in our methodology, helping readers grasp its relevance and importance in our statistical analysis.

• Reviewer Comment: The innovation of the paper is low.

  Response: While our primary approach was statistical, we believe it offers value by bringing together data over a span of two decades for Western Asia. Nevertheless, we've highlighted the unique insights and patterns that our study has unearthed, emphasizing its contribution to the field.

• Reviewer Comment: Section 3.6 gives some data obtained by statistical analysis.

  Response: Your suggestion to emphasize the practical significance is well-received. We've now enhanced our discussion in section 3.6, linking our statistical findings to real-world implications and potential policy changes.

• Reviewer Comment: The list of references should be extended.

  Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We have meticulously incorporated all the suggested references into our manuscript. They have not only enhanced our literature review but also brought interesting perspectives to our discussion. We appreciate your effort in guiding our work to be more comprehensive and up-to-date.

Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our manuscript, pushing us to bolster its depth and clarity. We sincerely hope our revised work addresses your concerns and lives up to the journal's standards.

Warm regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

·         The most problematic part of the manuscript is wording. A review should not contain only a listing of works, but it should contain the motivations, foundations for understanding, limitations of the models, logical entanglement and the authors' own critiques on the reviewed works.

• Rewrite the Conclusion: Restate your hypothesis or research question, restate your major findings, explain the relevance and added value of your work. Describe future directions for research and recommendations.
• Reference list is poor: We noticed many papers of only a few authors are cited. Only those papers that materially support or extend discussions of your work should be cited.

·         The major source of physical data must be included.

·         Please highlight how the work advances or increments the field from the present state of knowledge and provide a clear justification for your work.

·         Several reference citations do not seem to match the title or work in the paper.

·         The author has chosen the univariate analysis. provide a clear justification why univariate analysis, why not multivariate.

·         Numerical results should be compared with the literature.

·         In the conclusion section, it should be better for the readers to have a general paragraph first and then list the finding as it is already.

·         In figures 1 and 2, the author only illustrated the graphs but didn't give a proper interpretation.

 

 

I recommend the paper for publication after the application of the above comments.

·         The authors are advised to perform a substantial revision in this regard.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We greatly value your insights and have worked diligently to address each of your points. Please find our detailed responses below:

• Reviewer Comment: A review should not contain only a listing of works, but it should contain the motivations, foundations for understanding, limitations of the models, logical entanglement and the authors' own critiques on the reviewed works.

  Response: Thank you for this constructive observation. We have now expanded our discussion, ensuring that each reviewed work not only lists pertinent details but also delves into its motivations, foundational principles, and limitations. Our critiques on each piece have been enhanced, offering readers a richer understanding of how they fit into the broader research landscape.

• Reviewer Comment: Rewrite the Conclusion.

  Response: We're grateful for your guidance on this. We've revised the conclusion, ensuring it succinctly recaps our hypothesis, major findings, and the broader relevance of our research. Additionally, we've emphasized future research avenues and offered clear recommendations. We believe this reshaped conclusion now provides a holistic wrap-up of our study.

• Reviewer Comment: Reference list is poor.

  Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We've taken a rigorous look at our reference list and incorporated a broader range of authoritative and relevant works from diverse authors. This not only enriches our manuscript but ensures that each citation genuinely supports and extends our discussions.

• Reviewer Comment: The major source of physical data must be included.

  Response: We appreciate your emphasis on this. Our primary data source, the Emergency event database (EM-DAT), has been described in detail in the materials and methods section. We've made efforts to make its significance and relevance more evident, showcasing its pivotal role in our research.

• Reviewer Comment: Please highlight how the work advances or increments the field from the present state of knowledge.

  Response: We're thankful for this suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we've elucidated how our research offers novel insights, addressing current knowledge gaps and offering tangible contributions to the study of transportation accidents in Western Asia.

• Reviewer Comment: Several reference citations do not seem to match the title or work in the paper.

  Response: Thank you for noting this discrepancy. We've meticulously reviewed and rectified all our citations, ensuring they accurately and comprehensively represent the referenced works.

• Reviewer Comment: The author has chosen the univariate analysis.

  Response: Your query about our choice of univariate analysis over multivariate analysis is well-received. We've now added a comprehensive explanation in the methods section. The essence is that we aimed to analyze the distinct impact of individual factors, which we felt univariate analysis was better suited for, given the nature of our dataset and research questions.

• Reviewer Comment: Numerical results should be compared with the literature.

  Response: We wholeheartedly agree. In our revisions, we've juxtaposed our numerical findings with existing literature, providing context and underscoring the significance of our results.

• Reviewer Comment: In the conclusion section, it should be better for the readers to have a general paragraph first.

  Response: We value this suggestion and have restructured our conclusion accordingly. It now commences with an overarching paragraph, followed by our detailed findings.

• Reviewer Comment: In figures 1 and 2, the author only illustrated the graphs but didn't give a proper interpretation.

  Response: Your observation is spot on, and we apologize for this oversight. We've now enriched the captions and discussions surrounding Figures 1 and 2, offering readers a clear and insightful interpretation of the presented data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The authors are advised to perform a substantial revision in this regard.

Response: In response to your feedback about the quality of the English language, we would like to provide some context. The primary author of this manuscript was born, educated, and trained in the US, encompassing an extensive period of rigorous academic training and professional practice, all of which was conducted in English. Furthermore, after completing our manuscript, we took proactive steps to ensure its linguistic precision by revisiting the text multiple times. To guarantee the clarity and accuracy of our language, the manuscript was also meticulously reviewed by another native English speaker, and they did not identify any significant linguistic issues. We deeply respect and value your feedback. Nonetheless, this is the first occasion where a remark regarding our language quality has been raised about our work. To address your concerns thoroughly, it would be extremely beneficial if you could offer specific examples or highlight certain sections that need refinement. Detailed feedback of this nature will enable us to promptly and effectively address any language nuances or inconsistencies. We genuinely strive for our research to be articulated in the most clear and accurate manner. Your guidance is pivotal for us to achieve this goal.

In closing, your feedback has been instrumental in refining our manuscript. We genuinely hope that these enhancements address your concerns and make our paper a stronger candidate for publication.

Warm regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. No other comments arise. The current version can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments are addressed sufficiently, I have no further comments.