Impact of Ship Noise on Seafarers’ Sleep Disturbances and Daily Activities: An Analysis of Fatigue Increase and Maritime Accident Risk through a Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for Authors:
Abstract and Introduction:
The abstract should be revised to provide a more concise and informative summary of the study, emphasizing the research's key objectives and findings.
In the introduction, streamline the content to clearly establish the research's significance and research question.
Literature Review:
The literature review is comprehensive; however, it needs a more critical analysis to underscore the relevance of your study and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
In the discussion section, delve into a more thorough interpretation of the results. Go beyond summarizing findings and explore the practical implications of these findings for seafarers' fatigue and noise management.
Include a section that explicitly addresses how the results align with or diverge from the literature reviewed.
Limitations and Recommendations:
Expand on the discussion of limitations, emphasizing their potential impact on the study's validity.
Provide more specific recommendations for further research or practical applications based on the study's findings.
Conclusion and Key Takeaways:Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings and their broader implications for the maritime industry, seafarer safety, and compliance with legal requirements.
Ensure that the conclusion reflects the initial research question.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Abstract and Introduction:
- The abstract should be revised to provide a more concise and informative summary of the study, emphasizing the research's key objectives and findings.
Answer : Thank you for your comments, I made it concise from 40 pages to 20 pages. Reduced 20 pages
- In the introduction, streamline the content to clearly establish the research's significance and research question.
Answer : In the introduction, Make it briefly focusing main point of this paper as “This study delves into the impact of ship noise on seafarer well-being, emphasizing fatigue—a significant contributor to maritime accidents due to human error. The investigation, centered around the hypothesis that IMO ship construction standards may not adequately minimize noise levels in seafarer cabins, seeks to establish whether these levels are sufficient to ensure seafarer security and prevent sleep disturbances. According to current IMO regulations, noise levels are set at 55 dB for vessels under 10,000 gross tonnage and 60 dB for those over 10,000, yet WHO guidelines recommend a maximum of 40 dB in bedrooms to avoid sleep disruption. A comprehensive survey involving 221 cadets demonstrates that 79.6% of participants experience sleep disturbances, work disruptions, and stress due to noise, indicating that the present noise standards are insufficient. This paper argues that reducing noise levels in individual cabins to below 40 dB is critical for en-hancing seafarer health and safety and could significantly reduce human error-related maritime accidents. The findings advocate for more stringent noise control measures and regulatory reforms to bridge the knowledge gaps and improve labor protection in the maritime industry.”
Literature Review:
- The literature review is comprehensive; however, it needs a more critical analysis to underscore the relevance of your study and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Answer : The paper was written under the assumption that the ship construction standards set by the IMO regulations may not sufficiently reduce noise to levels that ensure seafarers feel secure, potentially impacting sleep and work performance, thereby exacerbating seafarer fatigue and leading to maritime accidents. Sufficient evidence was provided through a comprehensive and critical analysis conducted via surveys to support this hypothesis throughout the paper.
- In the discussion section, delve into a more thorough interpretation of the results. Go beyond summarizing findings and explore the practical implications of these findings for seafarers' fatigue and noise management.
Answer : I originally wrote the Discussion section of this paper during the first review, but as I rewrote Chapters 4 and 5, I incorporated the results of the survey into Chapter 5, and included the discussion content there as well
- Include a section that explicitly addresses how the results align with or diverge from the literature reviewed.
Answer : In accordance with your advice, The hypothesis of the paper was newly written and proven through Chapters 4 and 5.
Limitations and Recommendations:
- Expand on the discussion of limitations, emphasizing their potential impact on the study's validity.
Answer : Chapter 6, Conclusion, Recommendations, and Challenges, was written following your advice.
Provide more specific recommendations for further research or practical applications based on the study's findings.
Answer : Chapter 6, Conclusion, Recommendations, and Challenges, was written following your advice.
- Conclusion and Key Take aways: Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings and their broader implications for the maritime industry, seafarer safety, and compliance with legal requirements.
Answer : I strengthened the conclusion section in the order of Conclusion, Findings, Recommendations, Challenges.
- Ensure that the conclusion reflects the initial research question.
Answer : I have incorporated the initial project objectives into the conclusion section of this paper as “ This paper was conducted under the hypothesis that 'the ship construction standards set by the IMO regulations may not sufficiently reduce noise to levels that ensure seafar-ers feel secure, potentially impacting sleep and work performance, thereby exacerbating seafarer fatigue and leading to maritime accidents. It was initiated to prove this content. In the IMO regulations, the noise levels in seafarer cabins are set at 55 dB for vessels un-der 10,000 gross tonnage and 60 dB for those over 10,000 gross tonnage. However, the WHO stipulates that noise levels in personal bedrooms during sleep should not exceed 40 dB. Current surveys conducted among cadets indicate that 79.6% experience sleep disturbances, work disruptions, and stress due to noise. Therefore, the current IMO standard for noise in individual cabins should be reduced to below 40 dB, which will significantly contribute to reducing maritime accidents.".
- Review: 1. The title is a critical part of your manuscript. It is your reader’s—and reviewer’s—first introduction to your paper. An effective title should:
- Convey the main topics of the study.
- Highlight the importance of the research.
- Be concise.
- Attract readers.
Don’t use obscure words since titles that incorporate such words tend to have less impact. Please revise the title.
Answer : As you mentioned, Revised as “An Study on the Correlation between Onboard Noise and Seafarer The Impact of Ship Noise on Seafarers' Sleep Disturbances and Daily Activities: An Analysis of Fatigue Increase and Maritime Accident Risk through a Survey”
- Review 2. Choosing the correct keywords for your manuscript is an important step in making sure your work is discoverable by researchers and readers in your field. Keywords are used by databases, search engines, and indexing services to categorize and retrieve relevant content. Remember that selecting the right keywords is an ongoing process. The goal is to make your manuscript easily discoverable by the right audience, so invest the time and effort to choose keywords that accurately reflect your research.
Answer: I have thought extensively about the keywords as per your guidance. Therefore, the keywords have been reflected in the Abstract, and I believe they are the most important words for both finding and representing this paper effectively as “Abstract: This study delves into the impact of ship noise on seafarer well-being, emphasizing fatigue—a significant contributor to maritime accidents due to human error. The investigation, centered around the hypothesis that IMO ship construction standards may not adequately minimize noise levels in seafarer cabins, seeks to establish whether these levels are sufficient to ensure seafarer security and prevent sleep disturbances. According to current IMO regulations, noise levels are set at 55 dB for vessels under 10,000 gross tonnage and 60 dB for those over 10,000, yet WHO guidelines recommend a maximum of 40 dB in bedrooms to avoid sleep disruption. A comprehensive survey involving 221 cadets demonstrates that 79.6% of participants experience sleep disturbances, work disruptions, and stress due to noise, indicating that the present noise standards are insufficient. This paper argues that reducing noise levels in individual cabins to below 40 dB is critical for en-hancing seafarer health and safety and could significantly reduce human error-related maritime accidents. The findings advocate for more stringent noise control measures and regulatory reforms to bridge the knowledge gaps and improve labor protection in the maritime industry.
Keywords: Ship noise; Seafarer fatigue; Sleep; IMO; Maritime safety; Labor Protection”
- Review 3. Your abstract is clear and concise, which is essential for this section. However, ensure that each sentence is tightly written to convey information efficiently. Consider adding a brief statement that introduces the research gap or the problem your study addresses. This will help readers understand the context and why your study is important.
Answer: In light of your advice, the following abstract has been modified to
“ Abstract: This study delves into the impact of ship noise on seafarer well-being, emphasizing fatigue—a significant contributor to maritime accidents due to human error. The investigation, centered around the hypothesis that IMO ship construction standards may not adequately minimize noise levels in seafarer cabins, seeks to establish whether these levels are sufficient to ensure seafarer security and prevent sleep disturbances. According to current IMO regulations, noise levels are set at 55 dB for vessels under 10,000 gross tonnage and 60 dB for those over 10,000, yet WHO guidelines recommend a maximum of 40 dB in bedrooms to avoid sleep disruption. A comprehensive survey involving 221 cadets demonstrates that 79.6% of participants experience sleep disturbances, work disruptions, and stress due to noise, indicating that the present noise standards are insufficient. This paper argues that reducing noise levels in individual cabins to below 40 dB is critical for en-hancing seafarer health and safety and could significantly reduce human error-related maritime accidents. The findings advocate for more stringent noise control measures and regulatory reforms to bridge the knowledge gaps and improve labor protection in the maritime industry.”
- Review 4. The structure of the manuscript needs to be presented at the end of Section 1 like as "The paper is structured into … sections. Section 2 provides…
Answer: As your advice, in the end of the “Introduction” section, “This paper contains how the three factors of crew fatigue, sleep, and noise are interrelated in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 reviews international standards on noise, especially regarding noise standards for ships. Chapter 4 provided descriptions of the survey respondents, detailed the survey's design, and mentioned the methods used for data analysis. In Chapter 5, the outcomes obtained from the survey were examined, including frequency analysis and analysis of correlation coefficients based on the questionnaire. Finally, Chapter 6 conclude with considerations for future research.”
- Review 5. Abbreviations should be explained where they are first mentioned.
Answer: Yes. I reflected in the end of this paper as you mentioned it.
- Review 6. What is the keyword written to search engines in the statistical finding described in literature review about noise and fatique? Is the pattern “or” or “and” used. Sample: Seafarer fatique or noise, and management? Between what years was the detailed search done? Databases are very likely to see the same article. Has the data been extracted? Because there are many articles or scientific reports about search engine results. What restrictions criteria to be selected the best articles which you mentioned 15 main scientific papers?
Answer: I have given considerable thought to the part you mentioned. Therefore, Chapter 2 newly discusses the individual correlations between onboard noise, sleep, and seafarer fatigue, and the related literature is written based on statistically relevant data.
- Review 7. Instead of Criteria selection, the articles in the literature can be matched in the form of a table. The publications and criteria in the matched literature should be conveyed in detail 2 how often they are the subject of research. It is not clearly stated which publications are examined specifically for this subject and which criterion are excluded from the scope of the subject. Obviously, a more detailed table should be made.
Answer: As per your review comments, The intention was to include matched literature, but given the overall content of the paper was revised (previously from Literature Review to Survey as the research method), it was deemed unnecessary to create a table for previously published publications.
- Review 8. The conclusion section should be re-written mainly considering the hypothesis, key points of the findings, significance of the study, and contribution of the study to the existing literature.
Answer:
I fully reflected your advice in the conclusion.
" This paper was conducted under the hypothesis that 'the ship construction standards set by the IMO regulations may not sufficiently reduce noise to levels that ensure seafarers feel secure, potentially impacting sleep and work performance, thereby exacerbating seafarer fatigue and leading to maritime accidents. It was initiated to prove this content. In the IMO regulations, the noise levels in seafarer cabins are set at 55 dB for vessels un-der 10,000 gross tonnage and 60 dB for those over 10,000 gross tonnage. However, the WHO stipulates that noise levels in personal bedrooms during sleep should not exceed 40 dB. Current surveys conducted among cadets indicate that 79.6% experience sleep disturbances, work disruptions, and stress due to noise. Therefore, the current IMO standard for noise in individual cabins should be reduced to below 40 dB, which will significantly contribute to reducing maritime accidents. "
- Review 9. The results section contains valuable insights, but the data presentation is confusing. I recommend using graphs, tables, or charts to present the findings more visually, making it easier for readers to interpret the results.
Answer: In order to aid reader comprehension, graphs and charts were employed in the Survey Results of Chapter 5. section.
- Review 10. Research design, which is the framework of the research methods and techniques chosen by a researcher, should be presented and detailed.
Answer: Chapter 4 detailed the research design and methodology, and Chapter 5 presented the findings and results of the survey.
- Review 11. As suggested by the reviewer, a discussion section is particularly added to the study that addresses the proposed topic. In addition, the limitations of the research and recommendations for further research are also discussed. The discussion part should be explained by comparing it with other noise and fatigue studies, the different and valuable results from other studies should be added to the last part section. Contribution to science and the importance of the research and the suggestions in future studies should be explained particularly.
Answer: To incorporate your comments, I wrote the significant findings along with the hypothesis in Chapter 6 of the paper. Additionally, in the conclusion section, I not only discussed the results but also included Recommendations and Challenges.
I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled " The Impact of Ship Noise on Seafarers' Sleep Disturbances and Daily Activities: An Analysis of Fatigue Increase and Maritime Accident Risk through a Survey" submitted for publication.
While the study presented is interesting and relevant to the field, there are some major issues that need to be addressed before considering it for publication.
Considering these major issues, I believe the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. I recommend sending the revised version back to the authors for further improvements.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
The article submitted for review is very extensive. You (as the the Authors) undertook the difficult topic of describing all phenomena accompanying noise emissions on board seagoing ships, taking into account legal requirements and technical solutions. This is a risky undertaking due to the multitude of requirements applicable on a global scale, as well as the large number of solutions used. As a result, a huge work was created, consisting of a review of literature from a selected area of the world. Such work of this nature is also needed, but in my opinion the authors should carefully select the geographical area of applicable regulations and then equally carefully review the literature and regulations accompanying the analyzed phenomena. After this stage, it was necessary to make a critical selection of the main items on which we base the work. They had to be selected.
Unfortunately, with such works, the reader has the impression that the scientific level is not high due to the reproductive nature of the work. After all, it de facto concerns only the analysis of literature. The authors did not highlight their own scientific achievements, apart from the painstaking work of analyzing numerous regulations and solutions.
I did not find any equation or analysis results in the work, which is awkward when publishing in the Journal of Applied Sciences (vibration and noise section) - in a section belonging to the technical sciences group.
In many places it seems that the authors forgot about the details, analyzing only the provisions of selected regulations in a selected scope - without going into details of the measurements or devices themselves.
My critical comments:
1. The number of literature items, equal to 188, corresponds not to a scientific article, but to a larger project. It seems that the authors were unable to decide which of the cited items are actually important for the topic discussed. 15% of the work is the list of bibliographic items.
2. The literature lacks many European works on similar topics, e.g. G.Rutkowski, as well as the issue of examining noise as a stressor in the work environment. Noise exposure on a ship should be treated as such.
3. Many elements are described theoretically, e.g. Noise Canceling Methods. This information is valuable, but it belongs to popular knowledge, hence I am not sure whether it is essential and necessary at the level of this paper, which mainly concerns the comparison of regulations. The information provided regarding technical solutions is not sufficient for this type of article in this journal (Applied Sciences).
4. It seems that subsection 4.3 - Vibration Control Technologies is redundant. The work is not precisely based on the phenomena of material sound transmission, hence sudden signaling in the form of a short text is not advisable. The topic was treated casually.
5. Chapters 3.2.3 Measurement of Noise Source Level, 3.2.4 Structural Noise, 3.2.5 Airborne Sound - briefly treat the main problem discussed in the work. With such extensive descriptions and analysis of available and obvious regulations - would it not be worth devoting a technical description of measurements, requirements for measuring devices, or providing examples of them? The authors wrote "measurement system must meet, including microphones, cables and recording devices, integrating sound level meters, filters, windshields, and pressure calibrator" - no requirements were given for equipment, filter types, or time and weight characteristics used in measurements, whether the device for measurement should determine the exposure level or only the level averaged over the measurement time.
6. Figure 1. Allowable Daily and Occasional Noise Exposure Zone in Ship - shows a graph of average values presented in the regulations. There is no method of calculating the noise level during exposure and the exposure level for combinations of exposure to many acoustic phenomena, each of which lasts a finite time. This is typical for a visit to the machine room, participation in sandblasting of an element, welding, etc. for one employee during one work shift.
7. IMO Keywords: Ship; Accident; Seafarer; Fatigue; Noise, it should be extended to include "labor protection".
The work is a valuable comparison of regulations and a valuable collection of publications. However, the content should be edited.
All the best,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Authors!
- The article submitted for review is very extensive.
Answer : After considering your advice that the content of the paper was too extensive, I have reduced it from the original 40 pages to 20 pages. I have trimmed sections that I believe could serve as digressions. I hope you understand this.
- You (as the the Authors) undertook the difficult topic of describing all phenomena accompanying noise emissions on board seagoing ships, taking into account legal requirements and technical solutions. This is a risky undertaking due to the multitude of requirements applicable on a global scale, as well as the large number of solutions used. As a result, a huge work was created, consisting of a review of literature from a selected area of the world. Such work of this nature is also needed, but in my opinion the authors should carefully select the geographical area of applicable regulations and then equally carefully review the literature and regulations accompanying the analyzed phenomena. After this stage, it was necessary to make a critical selection of the main items on which we base the work. They had to be selected. Unfortunately, with such works, the reader has the impression that the scientific level is not high due to the reproductive nature of the work. After all, it de facto concerns only the analysis of literature. The authors did not highlight their own scientific achievements, apart from the painstaking work of analyzing numerous regulations and solutions.
Answer : I have condensed the content from approximately 40 pages down to 20 pages, and following a suggestion from another reviewer, I have additionally conducted a survey among cadets. I have also changed the manuscript's type from 'Review' to 'Article'. Considering these changes, I kindly request that you review the paper.
- I did not find any equation or analysis results in the work, which is awkward when publishing in the Journal of Applied Sciences (vibration and noise section) - in a section belonging to the technical sciences group.
Answer : The survey data was analyzed using ANOVA. Additionally, attempts were made to validate the hypotheses of the paper through Pearson's correlation coefficient and p-values.
In many places it seems that the authors forgot about the details, analyzing only the provisions of selected regulations in a selected scope - without going into details of the measurements or devices themselves.
Answer : The legal aspects of the paper dealt only with the IMO provisions, and all regulations from classification societies were omitted. Since the provisions were reflected by the classification societies, there were not many differences shown. The aim was to verify the adequacy of the noise regulations set by the IMO. According to the survey analysis, approximately 79.6% of the respondents reported experiencing stress due to noise, which they said affects their work and fatigue.
My critical comments:
- The number of literature items, equal to 188, corresponds not to a scientific article, but to a larger project. It seems that the authors were unable to decide which of the cited items are actually important for the topic discussed. 15% of the work is the list of bibliographic items.
Answer: Following your advice, I have reduced the number of references to about 64 and minimized the list of bibliographic items as much as possible.
- The literature lacks many European works on similar topics, e.g. G.Rutkowski, as well as the issue of examining noise as a stressor in the work environment. Noise exposure on a ship should be treated as such.
Answer: Following your advice, G.Rutkowski was removed from the literature, and Chapter 2 was rewritten to focus on an intensive analysis of sleep, stress, noise, and fatigue.
- Many elements are described theoretically, e.g. Noise Canceling Methods. This information is valuable, but it belongs to popular knowledge, hence I am not sure whether it is essential and necessary at the level of this paper, which mainly concerns the comparison of regulations. The information provided regarding technical solutions is not sufficient for this type of article in this journal (Applied Sciences).
Answer: Following your advice, I have removed the content related to noise canceling methods, and in accordance with another reviewer's suggestion, I conducted a survey to prove the hypothesis of the paper, 'Noise affects sleep and insufficient sleep impacts fatigue'.
- It seems that subsection 4.3 - Vibration Control Technologies is redundant. The work is not precisely based on the phenomena of material sound transmission, hence sudden signaling in the form of a short text is not advisable. The topic was treated casually.
Answer: Following your advice, I have deleted the related content.
- Chapters 3.2.3 Measurement of Noise Source Level, 3.2.4 Structural Noise, 3.2.5 Airborne Sound - briefly treat the main problem discussed in the work. With such extensive descriptions and analysis of available and obvious regulations - would it not be worth devoting a technical description of measurements, requirements for measuring devices, or providing examples of them? The authors wrote "measurement system must meet, including microphones, cables and recording devices, integrating sound level meters, filters, windshields, and pressure calibrator" - no requirements were given for equipment, filter types, or time and weight characteristics used in measurements, whether the device for measurement should determine the exposure level or only the level averaged over the measurement time.
Answer: Following your advice, I have deleted sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.5, and only briefly written the necessary content.
- Figure 1. Allowable Daily and Occasional Noise Exposure Zone in Ship - shows a graph of average values presented in the regulations. There is no method of calculating the noise level during exposure and the exposure level for combinations of exposure to many acoustic phenomena, each of which lasts a finite time. This is typical for a visit to the machine room, participation in sandblasting of an element, welding, etc. for one employee during one work shift.
Answer: Following your advice, it is indeed necessary to consider cases where various sounds are mixed, but realistically, obtaining such noise data is challenging. This paper focuses on establishing guidelines for acceptable noise levels in different areas of a ship, so the specifics of mixed noise levels are not required.
- IMO Keywords: Ship; Accident; Seafarer; Fatigue; Noise, it should be extended to include "labor protection".
Answer : By your advice, key words is rearranged “Ship noise; Seafarer fatigue; Sleep; IMO; Maritime safety; Labor Protection”
- The work is a valuable comparison of regulations and a valuable collection of publications. However, the content should be edited.
Answer : The content on regulations has been summarized according to IMO and ISO standards, and the rules from classification societies have been removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review manuscript is interesting and methodically analyses the problem of noise on board and its influence on maritime accidents through an extensive bibliography. However, in my opinion, the following points should be considered:
1. The fact of including more than 5 references in the same sentence is excessive. For instance, in Line 2 where COVID-19 impact is analysed, 11 references are included [1-11]. However, many of these 11 references predate the COVID crisis (years 1987, 2017, 2018). Please, revise.
2. The first appearance of an acronym in the text, its significance must be included. For instance, IMO (line 18); ILO (line 534); SOLAS (line 537)
3. Many researches mentioned and commented in the text are not included in the References section. E.g. (Smith et al (2018); Johnson and Brown (2019); jones et al. (2017); Brown and Smith (2018); Chen et al. (2019; Wang and Johnson (2021); Garcia, Rodriguez and Fernandez (2021); ….)
4. Some paragraphs are confusing or incomplete. For instance:
Lines 223; What study are you referring to?
Lines 239. What paper are you referring to?
5. DNV GL has been renamed to DNV again for years. Pleaes, correct.
6. Although in subsection 4.4. the word "ship" is included in the title, any method/tool/case commented along the subsection are referred to ships. Therefore, a justification for introducing this subsection would be needed.
7. Although 188 references are included in Reference section, only 2 references are included with DOI. Authors must include the DOI to all references, when available.
Author Response
This review manuscript is interesting and methodically analyses the problem of noise on board and its influence on maritime accidents through an extensive bibliography. However, in my opinion, the following points should be considered:
- The fact of including more than 5 references in the same sentence is excessive. For instance, in Line 2 where COVID-19 impact is analysed, 11 references are included [1-11]. However, many of these 11 references predate the COVID crisis (years 1987, 2017, 2018). Please, revise.
Answer : Thank you for your clarification. Based on your instructions to reduce the original references to two and remove any references published before the outbreak of COVID-19, I will select two pertinent references from the list provided that are published in 2020 or later.
- The first appearance of an acronym in the text, its significance must be included. For instance, IMO (line 18); ILO (line 534); SOLAS (line 537)
Answer : I've organized it as follows: Normally, when an acronym appears for the first time in the text, it should be accompanied by the full term. However, in this review paper, due to the large number of acronyms, instead of individually explaining each one within the text, I have compiled a list of acronyms at the end of the paper for a collective presentation. Please understand this approach
.Many researches mentioned and commented in the text are not included in the References section. E.g. (Smith et al (2018); Johnson and Brown (2019); jones et al. (2017); Brown and Smith (2018); Chen et al. (2019; Wang and Johnson (2021); Garcia, Rodriguez and Fernandez (2021); ….)
Answer : The content mentioned in this comment has been reflected in the references.
- Some paragraphs are confusing or incomplete. For instance:
Lines 223; What study are you referring to?
Answer : I have made overall revisions to clarify that phrase.
Lines 239. What paper are you referring to?
Answer : I have made overall revisions to clarify that phrase.
- DNV GL has been renamed to DNV again for years. Pleaes, correct.
Answer : The DNV section was deleted to reduce the overall content of the paper.
- Although in subsection 4.4. the word "ship" is included in the title, any method/tool/case commented along the subsection are referred to ships. Therefore, a justification for introducing this subsection would be needed.
Answer : The content of Subsection 4.4 has been generally integrated into another chapter.
- Although 188 references are included in Reference section, only 2 references are included with DOI. Authors must include the DOI to all references, when available.
Answer : I have attached DOIs to almost all references where possible. Books that does not require a DOI has not been included.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSubject: Acceptance of Manuscript applsci-2691233
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript titled "A Novelty on Managing On board Noise with Seafarers’ fatigue in Maritime Settings: A Comprehensive Review of International Legal Requirements and Technical Options" Congratulations on this achievement!
Feedback and Appreciation for Revisions:
The revisions made to your manuscript have significantly enhanced its clarity and depth, addressing the critical concerns raised during the review process. Your efforts to refine the discussion and conclusions, ensuring they align closely with your research hypothesis, have solidified the strength of your submission. The enhancements in data presentation, through improved graphs and tables, have made your findings more accessible and comprehensible.
I appreciate your detailed attention to incorporating the feedback from the initial reviews, particularly in:
Strengthening the abstract and introduction to better outline the key objectives and findings.
Conducting a more critical analysis in the literature review to underscore the relevance of your study.
Enhancing the discussion of the study’s implications, which now thoroughly explores the practical impact of your findings on seafarer fatigue and noise management.
Comments and Suggestions for Final Submission:
Final Edits: Please conduct a final review of your manuscript for any typographical or grammatical errors to ensure the text is polished and professional.
References Confirmation: Verify all citations for accuracy and ensure that they adhere to the journal's format, as accurate referencing significantly contributes to the usability and impact of your study.
Thank you once again for choosing Applied Science to disseminate your important research. I believe your work will make a significant contribution to the field of Maritime Science, and I am excited to share it with our readership.
Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our editorial team.
Warm regards,
