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.
Both the reviewers have now accepted the paper. I do agree with their decision.
I believe the paper has been adequately revised and is now suitable for publication.
Is adequate
Is adequate
I believe the paper has been adequately revised and is now acceptable for publicatiion.
The reviews are quite positive and the paper is well written. However, reviewers 1 and 3 have valid concerns about the model you have used (no control for random variation) and the comparison of results from previous years.
The paper is by and large clear, but would still benefit from language editing.
The paper applies an appropriate method, although it does not achieve control for random variation like the Empirical Bayes method.
The findings are valid.
There is limited overlap between the hazardous road locations identified in the two periods. Could tjis lead to false alarms?
This manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. Overall, the article is well-designed and quite readable.
This manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. Overall, the article is well-designed and quite readable.
This manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. Overall, the article is well-designed and quite readable.
This manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. Overall, the article is well-designed and quite readable.
Number of sentences that will need to be rephrased in an academic style
no cooment
In the past, car accidents have been investigated for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, we need to study the analysis that has been carried out on the same dataset. In the end, I would like to see a comparison table for the same dataset between the current research and previous ones.
The subject is hot; however, the chosen dataset has a number of limitations. I wish an AI approach has been used to extend the dataset before using them.
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.