Study on the Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Traffic Flow Parameters of Non-Motorized Vehicles on Highway Segments Crossing Small Towns
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper attempted to explore the macroscopic traffic flow characteristics (e.g., basic and speed characteristics) of mixed non-motorized vehicles on trunk highway segments crossing small towns. The topic is interesting and important; however, below are several remarks that should be considered seriously before recommending acceptance of this work.
The writing of the paper is not very good. There are several issues: logic and continuity are missing among sentences and paragraphs, grammatical mistakes, hard-to-read sentences, and vague terms. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly for such mistakes.
Abstract: The abstract is not written very well. The authors should present the study’s background, method, and results clearly. Also, report a summary of the possible implications.
Introduction: The introduction does not address the background and scope of the current research. It lacks logic and flow, making it quite difficult to understand the need of the present study. Please write the introduction section focusing on the present research’s background, scope and need. Also, provide an extensive and organized literature review to properly identify/present the research gap.
Traffic questionnaire survey: Please elaborate on why and how the questionnaire was designed. How was it distributed, and how was the sample collected? Also, please supplement the questionnaire in the Appendix to let the readers better understand the questionnaire parameters. Please improve the presentation of the figures.
Non-motorized vehicle flow parameter relationship analysis and analysis of the relationship between speed and distance to the town center: A major concern is that the results presented are very straightforward, general, and tedious. The conclusions drawn are obvious and simple. Also, the authors did not discuss how the present study results are unique/contribute to the non-motorized literature, nor did they support their findings from the existing literature.
Conclusions: The conclusions are too general and read like a summary. Please discuss in more detail what findings of the present study are more relevant and what implications they may have for transportation planners and policymakers.
References: The references in the literature presented are well-suited to the topic. However, more appropriate references should be provided. Also, the format of the references is different from that of the journal’s advised format.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The terminology is not explained accurately, and some formula parameters are explained incorrectly in this paper.
2. There are some grammatical and citation errors in the paper.
3. The transition between multiple paragraphs in the text is not natural, which can easily reflect the difficulty of reading.
4. Generally speaking, the contributions of this article will be listed one by one in the last part of the introduction.
5. There were few introductions to relevant work, and the deficiencies of the existing work were not clearly described. The following articles are recommended to read and discuss which are all vehicle characteristics. (1) “SPIDER: A Social Computing Inspired Predictive Routing Scheme for Softwarized Vehicular Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (2) “Intelligent Content Caching Strategy in Autonomous Driving Toward 6G,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (T-ITS), 2021
6. The serial numbers of the chapters in this paper are confused. For example, in 3.1, the Arabic numeral serial numbers appear twice.
7. The pictures in this article are not rigorous enough and the definition is not high. As shown in Figure 6, electric bicycles and bicycles are indistinguishable.
8. The description of tables in this paper is not clear enough. For example, the explanation of Table 5 is not clear, which makes it difficult for readers to understand.
9. Some references are cited incorrectly, and no specific quotation is found in the text.
10. There are many detail errors in this article. For example, a space should be left blank after punctuation marks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer's basic comments:
The article presents the results of research on the analysis of the characteristics of the passage of non-motorized vehicles on the section national highway crossing small towns on the basis of selected research methods. The subject concerns areas important for researchers related to transport engineering, transport economics, the subject of zero-emission transport and ITS, thanks to which it fits into the subject of the journal. The topic taken up by the researchers is scientifically interesting, the more so because they refer to current topics related to changes in the field of mobility and road traffic engineering, emission-free transport and road safety.
However, the purpose of the study (specifically, the absence of hypotheses) is not well defined. The structure of the article is not fully transparent. First of all, the biggest disadvantage of the work is its study and limited nature, which does not allow for polemics with other researchers. The work lacked a research character based on real research carried out by the authors of the article on a larger research sample and comparison with another geographical area. So desirable in relation to the works published in "MDPI". In the introduction, there is no reference to the topic of introducing solutions related to emission-free transport with road safety, or at least the concept of a smart road - or to similar research results of other scientists based on other sources and related topic - current solutions - action in practice - for this type of transport. An important drawback is also the lack of a description of the evolution of changes in transport and the essence of the research problem cited, e.g. a chapter devoted to a broad literature review is missing. References to the latest concepts described in the available journal. The size of the research sample, the geographical selection itself and the considerations presented in this form are controversial, as are the selection of research tools and the method of conducting research, as well as the way of inferring - without a proper description, justification and characteristics of limitations - reference to reality, or even analysis all variables, their scientific value is negligible. In addition, the work does not include a concept based on technical solutions that have increased security - or at least a SWOT analysis. In addition, the work is weakened by the lack of reference to the costs of implementing such a concept by the authors of the solutions. Merely quoting statements concerning transport streams in the text is not enough to draw general conclusions, such a procedure raises many doubts as to their methodological correctness. No presentation of discussions - polemics with other researchers - on the results of research on a global scale - this polemic in the work is scarce. A significant disadvantage is the fact that in most cases the authors do not base their conclusions on practical solutions. The adopted research procedure and the scheme of the scientific process do not emphasize the innovativeness and contribution of the authors to science and their practical application - only the results of the research were quoted, omitting the analysis of cause and effect aspects. This leads to a limited applicability of the results in practice. The presented conclusions have no scientific value, especially without any limitations, and are only a repetition of the statements known before the research. The conclusions omitted their practical application and the further stage of research. There is also no description of the abbreviations used. The accepted literature is too sparse for an often and widely reported research problem.
Detailed notes. Underdeveloped areas that require correction, e.g.:
1) The topic of the work - does not fully correspond to the content of the considerations. Consider changing it to match the content of the assignment. In particular, there are many other problems in this. about travel preferences and determinants.
2) Abstract - (lack of research hypotheses, lack of a properly defined purpose of the work, as well as main assumptions, measurements of the methods used - description of scenarios, dates of research, geographical location, etc. - practical application emphasizes and the authors' contribution to the current state of knowledge and innovation.
3) Keywords - Consider changing your keywords.
4) Introduction - (a partial description of the essence of the factors affecting the development of zero-emission transport and the essence of the problem of traffic safety - BIKE - ROAD - HUMAN, no reference to the latest traffic regulations in force in a given country (in Europe, this type of vehicle cannot be used on roads fast traffic) or technological solutions in this area and the correct identification of this category of vehicles - description - it is necessary to emphasize the manifestation of innovation in research and their practical application not of regional, but national or even international scope.
5) Supplement the work with the chapter Literature review, description of changes taking place in transport and research on this issue of international scope - development of transport, definition of a non-mechanical vehicle and their evolution of concepts, at least in tabular form indicating the development of further scenarios.
6) Chapter 2 questionnaire survey replace the research method - (no justification of the tool used - adopted criteria, description of solutions, economic and practical benefits, innovativeness of the method - all presented methods and their description should be understandable to a person who is not an expert in this topic). This fragment should be properly structured with a division into Conceptual Assumptions, Sampling Methods, Tool Description, Analysis Scheme, this will greatly improve the clarity of considerations: (This applies to all methods mentioned in the article - it is worth re-reading when it is to be applied to which variables application does not allow inference)
A noticeable need to present a model in order to assess scenarios - development barriers and benefits. In particular, research should be conducted in such a way as to answer the questions posed in the article.
7) Chapter 4 should be called Test results (simulation) - It is necessary to improve the quality of presenting not only test results, but also their limitations. The current description does not allow for the statement that the presented method is innovative and brings a new perspective to science and allows for the formulation of conclusions. I encourage the authors to familiarize themselves with the extensive literature on the subject of statistical research methods and correlation coefficients and the possibility of their application.
8) Formulas - all quoted in the text need to be checked again in terms of methodological correctness.
9) Figures - some of them require a detailed description of the x and y variables with an explanation.
10) Chapter Discussion and Conclusions - requires development and reference to research on issues raised both on the scale of urban roads, intersections or even entire cities in terms of road safety. Some of the conclusions presented do not result directly from the content presented in the article, but are only the authors' "thesis" - the presented considerations should be re-edited to capture the essence of the research problem. There is no reference to the feasibility of the presented scenarios. From the scientific point of view, it would be right to analyze the presented model on a real system of intersections, e.g. in several cities, which the authors themselves are aware of.
11) Application section - to be completed. For the presentation of conclusions to refer directly to the authors' research and to verify both the objectives and possible research hypotheses. Research limitations and possible next steps should be indicated
12) Bibliography - Of course, the literature should also be expanded and supplemented with the latest works on the discussed research topic of international scope, e.g.
13) In the final part of the work - there is no list of abbreviations used, they should be completed.
14) The language of the article requires re-edition.
To sum up, in the opinion of the reviewer, the current form of the article requires a significant correction to meet the requirements of works published by Sustainability in this research area. The attached suggestions are intended to raise the scientific level of the article in order to avoid future disputes in favor of the authors of the article, resulting from the international reach of the Journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer thanks the authors for addressing the reviewer's concerns on the earlier version of the paper. However, the writing of the paper is still not very good. There are several issues: for instance, the sentences are too long, e.g., lines 18-25 are one single sentence. The authors should carefully revise the whole manuscript for this issue. Similarly, the authors used vague terms, e,g., in lines 83-84: instead of "Professor Zhaowei Qu", the authors should use Qu et al. ... Also, there are many grammatical mistakes. The reviewer strongly recommends the authors to please revise the manuscript thoroughly for the abovementioned/other issues. Moreover, please improve the logic and continuity among sentences and paragraphs to improve the readability, conscience, and clarity of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer's comments
In the new version of the manuscript, the authors made a few changes in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions. Both with regard to the content of the work, the layout and the considerations presented, some of them still remained unanswered, in particular as regards general comments. In addition, it should be emphasized that the renewed creative process did not remove the greatest objection to increasing the scientific value of the considerations presented.
Their purposefulness, originality and scientific comparability. Considering the fact that we are talking about already existing and rich literature on the subject - with a highly rated research base on the same research topic. It should be noted that conducting a scientific discussion in a publishing house of such high prestige as Sustainability should be based on the correct use of scientific tools.
There are still areas in the work that require correction and supplementation or clarification in order to avoid a situation where the presented considerations will be disqualified in terms of scientific correctness and the adopted research methodology after its publication.
These areas include:
1) The title of the work - in its current form, it contains an error in the correctness of the definition and description of the considerations. The authors do not analyze the characteristics of non-motorized vehicles, but describe the determinants of choice. Certainly, the authors conducting many years of research in this topic are aware of this - The term analysis, although used interchangeably in the literature, refers to other processes both in the field of economic sciences and road traffic engineering.
In addition, the title uses motorways, it should be remembered that in the case of motorways, the applicable law, in particular in Europe, does not allow this category of vehicles to move on this section of the road The authors do not analyze all factors or mechanisms, but at most selected from the entirety of connections between "users' choice" and the selected road section. There is also no description of the model mechanism itself, as it is used in economic sciences and even in the field of road traffic engineering. It should be emphasized that the word characteristic refers to the concept of min. traffic organization and ongoing changes. In the case of the authors' considerations, one can only talk about an attempt to examine the factors (in a narrow scope) that affect it. Therefore, it is appropriate to rewrite the title correctly.
2) Abstract - supplemented with a description of the method of classification used - and justification for its choice in relation to the research topic, the more so that the cited literature contains a description of the models used or research methods used in this particular case, it is a survey.
3) Introduction - it is necessary to emphasize more and indicate the innovativeness of the presented ones and their practical application. Finally, describe the sections of the article with their details. Moreover, the introduction lacks reference to European legal documents in this matter. Which will certainly facilitate the understanding of the essence of the research problem by the authors of the publication.
4) Literature research study chapter - it should be remembered that such a chapter is an important contribution of the authors to the research part and cannot be omitted.
5) Chapter Research method Still a serious scientific shortcoming is the lack of description of the applied classification method and the method of statistical correlation standard (extensive literature on the subject). (lack of justification for the tool used - adopted criteria, description of solutions, economic and practical benefits, innovativeness of the method - all presented methods and their description should be understandable to a person who is not an expert in this topic). This fragment should be properly structured with a division into Conceptual Assumptions, Sampling Methods, Tool Description, Analysis Scheme, which will significantly improve the clarity of considerations: of the examined variables, the adopted research method does not allow for conclusions
Please note that without presenting data and assumptions, i.e. a description based on a proper research description of the considerations used, the quality of the presented considerations is scientifically low. Because it is not only polemic for other authors, but it can also be questioned by other researchers publishing papers in MDPI as inconsistent with research ethics. Therefore, in order to avoid such a situation in the future, this chapter and considerations should be absolutely supplemented with a proper description of the research tools used, in this case the methods of data classification and the statistical method of data correlation based, for example, on Spearman's rank coefficients.
6) The authors use formulas in their work, their methodological correctness should be checked again and a description of the symbols used should be included in the final part.
Noteworthy is the fact that the questionnaire was included, but it should be included in the appropriate annex.
7) Discussion of the chapter and Conclusions - still some of the conclusions presented do not result directly from the content presented in the work, but are only the "thesis" of the authors - the presented considerations require redaction to indicate the limitations, next steps and practical application of the research.
Finally, the Reviewer would like to note that the attached suggestions are intended to raise the scientific level of the article in order to avoid future disputes in favor of the authors of the article, resulting from the international reach of the journal and the rich literature on this research topic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
After proofreading, the reviewer does not make any comments to the text.
I congratulate the authors on their idea and wish them creative continuation of research in this field.
