All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All reviewers have accepted the paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sebastian Ventura and Claudio Ardagna, 'PeerJ Computer Science. Section Editors covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
No comment
Past comments are fulfilled.
Past comments are fulfilled.
Past comments are fulfilled.
Past comments are fulfilled.
Dear authors,
Your paper has been reviewed by three reviewers who suggested revisions. Please make appropriate changes and write cover letter with replies to reviewers point to point.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment'
no comment'
no comment
The experiment shows very well the rationality of the proposed model. A good example of spatiotemporal modeling of traffic data and the multiple possibilities of application
Special praise to the author for the methodology of the paper and the given case study. To make the work even better, I give certain suggestions:
In the abstract (18th, 19th, 21th, 22th line), as well as in other parts of the paper, the first person plural is used to write the paper (35th,55th,63th,64th, 67th, 68th 69th 71th 72th 76th 80th 84th 86th 87th 88th 89th 92th 94th 169th 172th 173th 194th 198th 200th 201th 209th 214th 216th 217th 222th 224th 226th 228th 230th 233th 237th 238th 249th, After Algorithm1, 255th 261th 265th, After 268th , After Figure 4, 276th 280th 284th 287th 290th 296th 298th 305th 307th 309th 312th 314th 341th 342th 385th 391th 392th 393th 398th 401th 405th 414th 421th 422th 427th 429th 430th 441th 452th 454th 457th 464th 466th 469th 477th). That needs to be corrected. The paper can not be written in the first person!
Suggestion to authors: Instead of the title "2. Related Works" use "LITERARY REVIEW"....Not mandatory.
Also, chapter 2 needs to add an INTRODUCTION section (from line 39 to line 54).
Algorithm 1: Is it possible to show this as an algorithm (rather than a program)? Make a figure.
Line 284-289- Must state what speed it is? State that it was obtained by local measurement
Line 296 - State which 35 days were used in the research?
Images should follow the chronology of the text in the paper (For example figure 6, 7, 8, Line 430 ……in Figure 9…..- page 13. Figure 9 is on page 15!)
In the discussion, a picture is given which is found in the conclusion. This part of the text must be adjusted and rearranged.
499 - Instead of a discussion chapter, I suggest to the authors that the chapter be titled ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
At the end of the discussion, add Figure 10. and comment this Figure. Remove figure 10 from the conclusion!!
In the conclusion, a concrete result of the research must be given!! (I don't see it...)
No Comment
It is a very interesting research, based on an intelligent transportation systems... The paper represents an extremely important segment of research in road engineering, but it is written unsystematically in some parts.
Figure 2 is very well shown. Also, the meaning per section is clearly explained!
No comment
The following concerns are raised after reading the paper:
The related literature reviewed should be followed by a comprehensive research gap analysis;
The main contribution is not well described and justified;
The convolutional network concept needs to be more elaborated with respect to different processes given in the literature;
The significance of using integrated Spatial-Temporal hypergraph in comparison with other techniques already worked out in the literature is not well explained;
What is exactly new in the mathematical formulations should be pointed out;
The numerical study needs more elaboration and analysis using more multi-dimension illustrations;
Tables and figures need to be explained;
The managerial implications should be well discussed in the application areas of the approach.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.