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.
The authors have addressed all the comments from the reviewers.
Please conduct the revisions as requested by the comments from the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The paper can be accepted.
The paper can be accepted.
The paper can be accepted.
The paper can be accepted.
-I suggest adding more references such as:
--Zambrano-Martinez, J. L., Calafate, C. T., Soler, D., Lemus-Zúñiga, L. G., Cano, J. C., Manzoni, P., & Gayraud, T. (2019). A centralized route-management solution for autonomous vehicles in urban areas. Electronics, 8(7), 722.
--Lv, Y.; Duan, Y.; Kang, W.; Li, Z.; Wang, F.Y. Traffic flow prediction with big data: A deep learning approach.
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. 2014, 16, 865–873
--There are no Figures of which are the polynomial curve for the predictive model.
Everything is fine.
Perform the suggested modifications.
Please further address the reviewer's comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
English should be carefully checked.
The review of the state of the art is not sufficiently addressed according to reviewers' suggestions.
Experimental design is fine.
Novelty is adequately addressed.
-
Please revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments and provide detailed responses to the raised concerns and comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The review of the state of the art is insufficiently addressed. Literature references should be improved. See for example:
F. Castaño, G. Beruvides, R. E. Haber, and A. Artuñedo, “Obstacle recognition based on machine learning for on-chip lidar sensors in a cyber-physical system,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 17, no. 9, 2017, doi: 10.3390/s17092109.
F. Castaño, G. Beruvides, A. Villalonga, and R. E. Haber, “Self-tuning method for increased obstacle detection reliability based on internet of things LiDAR sensor models,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 18, no. 5, 2018, doi: 10.3390/s18051508.
The quality of figures should be improved. Font size is too small in some cases.
Other machine learning methods should be explored. Why are not explored self-parameterization using gradient-free optimization methods? See for example:
R.-E. Precup and R.-C. David, Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms for Fuzzy Controlled Servo Systems, Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2019.
R. Haber et al., "A Simple Multi-Objective Optimization Based on the Cross-Entropy Method," IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 22272-22281, 2017.
G. Wang and L. Guo, "A novel hybrid bat algorithm with harmony search for global numerical optimization," Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2013, 2013.
R. H. Guerra et al., “Digital Twin-Based Optimization for Ultraprecision Motion Systems with Backlash and Friction,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 93462–93472, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2928141.
Other performance indices and techniques should be included in the comparison to assess the real contribution of the proposed approach.
Conclusions are adequate according to the study.
The work addresses an interesting topic however the novelty and the progress beyond the state of the art is not sufficiently outlined.
-This paper does not present a Professional English, since the authors must write the acronyms correctly, and some acronyms do not have their meaning. Correct this error. Also, the words "Figure", "Table", "Equation", "Algorithm", must be written with the first letter in capital letters. Review and correct it in the article.
-The authors have not placed some reference scientific literatures, so I suggest performing a more in-depth investigation and adding these articles:
----- Zambrano-Martinez, J. L., Calafate, C. T., Soler, D., Lemus-Zúñiga, L. G., Cano, J. C., Manzoni, P., & Gayraud, T. (2019). A Centralized Route-Management Solution for Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas. Electronics, 8 (7), 722.
--- Zhang, X .; Onieva, E .; Perallos, A .; Osaba, E .; Lee, V. Hierarchical fuzzy rule-based system optimized with genetic algorithms for short term traffic congestion prediction. Transp. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 2014, 43, 127–142
-The structure of the article is well detailed and will match the results with the hypothesis they present.
-The results are a bit weak on the part of the authors, because the authors must include some Figure with their respective explanation, when the scenario is not applied the prediction, and when the scenario is applied the prediction, that is noticed when it has exceeded the prediction.
-The authors do not present which scenario is being studied. Furthermore, they do not present the parameters for that study. Some Figure of the stage must be placed.
-Figure 2 can be transformed into an Algorithm, if it is done it would give more quality to the paper.
-Is there a figure that shows the prediction that the authors comment?
-With which simulator has the study been performed?
-More graphics are needed for the reader to understand more about the work done.
-How is the Smart Traffic Management System presented by the authors composed?
-What are the routes that the vehicles have taken to predict traffic?
-The authors do not present where the data comes from to perform the experiment. Which must be detailed, and referenced
-The conclusions must be improved according to the new implementations suggested by the reviewers that support the results.
-The authors must perform the changes suggested by the reviewers to improve the quality of the article.
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.