Path Planning for Autonomous Platoon Formation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors submitted a manuscript, which looks like a previous submission to IEEE Transactions on ITS, or the IEEE IV or ITSC conferences. Despite this, it is too long for a 6 to 8 pages manuscript. Reasons for that arise from the unusual structure of the paper: having objectives and assumptions as own sections 3 and 4 is very confusing. They should be subsections 1.1 and 1.2 of the introduction section 1; and not the abstract, which should never be a numbered section. On the other hand section 5 to 7 should be the subsections of the methodology (section 3). The previous section 2 is missing, since the literature review is not present and the only 10 references are by far not enough for a journal paper. Here the authors should invest some time in finding suitable related and recent work, preferably from journal papers. Section 4 is the results section as it describe the implementation in sections 8 to 10. Here, once again the structure of the manuscript confuses, as the authors only have subsection 9.1 and not 9.2; as well as the only subsection 10.1.1 in section 10. The presence of just one subsection is not valid and should be avoided as it also makes no sense to me.

Finally, the authors should avoid making advetisement for the expensive proprietary software IPG CarMaker. and especially Matlab Simulink; two software components, which easily might be exchanged with open source software (it only requires more effort to implement the approach). This is what should be aimed for: a software-independent description of how to implement "Path Planning for Autonomous Platoon Formation". This would be much more valuable for the potential reader (even more practival value).

Sections 11 and 12 should be "discussions and conclusion" --> section 5.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your relevant review that helps us improving the quality of the paper.

Please find the attached file. All the necessary changes have been made. Mainly:

- Much text has been clipped which could be found in reference, and some moved to appendix. Many figures removed that were not completely relevant Abstract included

- Introduction is more extensive with literature review and objectives discussed 

- We are at 8 pages for main text body + 2 pages for references (not counting the appendix)

- Link to video has been included that shows the accuracy of the model

- More references has been added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work proposes a methodology for the implementation of autonomous path planning for platoon formation on highways. This research described is useful and potentially generate new knowledge in the field of vehicle automation. However, the current manuscript is not written in a journal format, more like a technical report. Most of the content of the manuscript is presenting results. Major revision is needed before considering whether the paper is publishable.

The authors’ affiliation is not presented in the correct format. Only mention the name of the organisation is not only enough. It should include the address of the organization.

Abstract

The abstract should be rewritten. For example, to include one sentence about the context of the study, one or two sentences about the methods, one or two sentences about the results as well as implications of results.

Introduction

The introduction needs significant elaboration. It should set out the context of the study, why the research in this area is worth researching? E.g., why the path planning for platoon formation on highways is so important for autonomous driving.

Literature review

The literature review section is missing. It should provide a critical review of the previous research in this area. What have they found? Are there any limitations in their research? Such a review is important to enable the reader to understand why the current study is important.

By the end of the literature review, there should be a section discussing the research gaps identified prior to the Aim and Objectives of the study.

Aim and objectives

What’s the overall aim of the study? There should be one section-Aim & objectives to describe the overall aim of the study as well as the objectives needed to achieve the overall aim.

Discussion

The discussion is missing. The findings of the current research should be interpreted and compared with the previous research in order to draw meaningful and inspiring implications.

Conclusion

The conclusion is should be improved. The main implications of the study should be added. Also, section 11 limitation should be merged with the conclusion. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your relevant review that helps us improving the quality of the paper.

Please find the attached file. All the necessary changes have been made. Mainly:

- Abstract has been rewritten

- The introduction has been elaborated and its include the literature review, many references has been included. - Introduction is more extensive with literature review and objectives discussed as you have required.

- Much text has been clipped which could be found in reference, and some moved to appendix. Many figures removed that were not completely relevant.

- Link to video has been included that shows the accuracy of the model

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for revising the paper. However, the comments in the first round of review have not been fully addressed.

Overall, the manuscript still reads like a technical report rather than a scientific research paper.

The page numbers are missing.

Introduction

the overall aim of the study is still not clear.

Method

Section 2 to 5 should be grouped into one Method section.

Section 6 should be split into two sections-Discussion and Conclusion.

The discussion is missing. The findings of the current research should be interpreted and compared with the previous research in order to draw meaningful and inspiring implications.

Conclusion

The conclusion is should be improved. The main implications of the study should be added.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Following your comments, the Introduction has been revised and we hope the motivation of the study is clear now for the potential readers.

Relevant changes to the format have been made. The appendices have been removed all together with the relevant portion added concisely to the main body with additional references. 

The discussion is presented. And finally the implications of this work have been better put and emphasized in the conclusion.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for revising the paper and addressing my comments. I still think the discussion session should be expanded by comparing the findings of this study with previous literature. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review, the discussion part has been expanded according to your recommendations. The general text has been proofread by a native speaker. We hope that the new version will meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx