Car-Following Model Optimization and Simulation Based on Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents research furthering the CACC models. I have the following comments that the authors should consider:
1) The introduction focuses on China and the developments there. The authors should also review global developments to be comprehensive.
2) The literature cited in the manuscript needs to also be more reflective of the field in general.
3) Section 6 needs to be expanded. It would be useful to have some discussion on the implications and future research in this section instead of the three short points currently in this section. More importantly, the novel and useful contribution of this manuscript needs to be clearer, in terms of its state of the art and contribution to the advancement in the rapidly developing area of research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article. Areas to be corrected:
1. The 30th and 34th lines contain numbering (1) and (2). Since this is a classification, the preceding sentence should end with a colon instead of a period. If it is not the idea of the previous sentence, then the sentence should be written down.
2. The introduction lacks justification of the problem and highlighting of the purpose of the article.
3. In the introduction of the 2nd chapter, it is recommended to justify why the structure and need of that chapter is like this.
4. Specify the name of subsection 2.1, because it is not clear what model we are talking about. In addition, this subsection is too small in scope and should be expanded or logically connected to another section, since it also deals with model parameters.
5. In line 139, incorrect numbering, section 2.2 is followed by section 3.3. In addition, if this chapter is connected with the methodology on the basis of which the results are presented later, then in this case it is appropriate to rename the chapter to Methods and Methodology
6. Specify the name of 3.1, because it is not clear what model we are talking about.
7. It should be noted that it is not recommended to make sections/subsections smaller than 1 page. Therefore, it is recommended to review the entire article - and avoid such things.
8. In line 209, subsection 4.4 appears, and where section 4. It is also recommended to clarify the name, because it is not clear what it is being compared to.
9. If the system allows, then in all figures, indicate the measurement units next to "simulation time".
10. It is recommended to correct the title of 5.4.
11. The limitations of the research should be included in the conclusions, and directions for further research on the subject should be indicated.
12. It is recommended to expand the list of literature sources.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This research paper presents an interesting Car-following model optimization and simulation based on cooperative adaptive cruise control. The abstract needs to be more measured based on the results, eg. How the classical CACC car-following model was improved. The introduction section is well written and highlights the aim of the paper. The literature review needs to be more consolidated, particularly dealing with approaches of stability analysis of the car-following models. Although the methodology is well developed, it is somewhat too concise. For example, more information is needed dealing with “speed variation of the car-following platoon using the improved CACC model”, and “Analysis of following characteristics at different g”. Please consider expanding these processes. Finally, the conclusion section is a bit vague. This section needs to discuss more of the g differentiation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your comments and work on our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the fixes, but there are still a few things to tweak:
1. To expand the introduction of the 2nd chapter (e.g. indicating the logical structure of the 2nd chapter, etc.)
2. Make the name of 2.1 more scientific.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
