Mobility Choices—An Instrument for Precise Automatized Travel Behavior Detection & Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper illustrates some aspects relating to an automatized travel behavior detection and analysis tool, that is Mobility Choice, or MC. In my opinion, the topic is extremely interesting and the paper proposes a concrete point of view, through the presentation of a real-life case study.

I believe, however, that the paper needs a substantial revision, in order to result clearer to readers and to show greater logical coherence, strength of argument and academic soundness. In its current form, the paper appears more as a description of the features of the MC app than as a clear and orderly structured presentation of the project, with its objectives and challenges, problems and solutions. Actually, these discussions appear in a nutshell in some sections of the paper, but in my opinion there is a need for more evidence, which brings the centrality to the elements of scientific interest.

Starting from the introduction, in fact, it is necessary to clarify the research questions and the objectives of the paper, presenting its contents and its structure. It is necessary to better clarify the reference context for MC (actors, objectives, contents, infrastructures, state of implementation, etc.), without neither the introduction nor the whole paper becoming a simple description of MC (project and / or app) but a treatment of the most important and interesting aspects to be brought to the reader's attention.

I believe that it is also necessary to reconsider the structures, and perhaps the titles, of some sections. For example, section 2 appears in some parts more as the presentation of some alternatives selected for the implementation of CTM than as a true state of the art. Section 3 could be more focused on defining the requirements and methodology, allowing for quick evidence. Section 4 presents the results and these seem to be too focused on the description of the MC app. The point of view of the app structure should be preferred rather than its description as for a user manual.

I also wonder if it is not possible to report information on any tests performed on the functioning of the app (in the laboratory during the construction phases, in pre-production or in production phases with users, etc.) in relation to the various aspects of interest for the service (accuracy of acquisitions, processing, reliability and degree of reactivity of mobility choices and choice proposals to users, characteristics of use and response to the needs of users and stakeholders of the MC, etc.). I believe that these can represent aspects of real interest to improve paper and its usefulness in the sector, for both research and applications.

I invite the author to check the entire text for typos and errors, and to verify the completeness of the references, as some appear missing and others are incorrectly attributed (see for example line 33 KONTIV, line 36 Automatic tracking systems, or lines 151/153 etc.). From this point of view, I also invite the author to review some less gender-inclusive text expressions, such as the use of he / his in relation to user (please, use inclusive forms such as he / she or his / her as appropriate). It may also be observed that the text appears too broad, to the detriment of the immediacy of the information.

More attention should be paid to the presentation of the graphics. The presentation and quality of all images need to be improved. It is also necessary to review the numbering of the images, because the captions highlight some errors in the sequence. Also, the app screen images should be compacted to be less sparse in text.

I really hope that my suggestions can be considered useful by the author to improve the paper and make it even more interesting.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reports findings of the Mobility Choices project which automatically determines user’s transport modes and record the data. The research is useful. However, there are some comments that need to be addressed before being considered for publication.

1. The introduction and literature review sets up the context of the research and provides some useful background information. However, what is the research gap identified in the literature? There should be one paragraph, probably at the end of the State of the art, to discuss the research gap identified and justify why the current study is worth researching and the potential benefits the current research will add.
2. Before section 3 Requirements and Methodology, there should be one section to clearly explain the aim of the study.
3. Line 225, there should be more justification about the selection of criteria. Especially the health, what about the end-users do not want to disclose it?
4. Line 260 what about the GDPR considerations?
5. Line 596 has the result of overall 97% accuracy been validated in real life?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was adequately revised, based on reviewers' comments and notes. I thank the author and I accept the article in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has addressed my comments, I have no further comments.