Safety Lighting Sensor Robots Communicate in the Middle of the Highway/Roads^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper concerns the design of a new machine-to-machine communication approach for the increased safety of roadworks. The idea is interesting and employs the use of modern technical achievements.

 The Authors however, have not presented extensive state-of-the-art analysis. The introductory part mainly points to previous works of the group, without showing the wider range of research works from the world. Also, the background does not clearly points out scientific/technological problems that need to be solved to successfully implement the solution.

The purpose of the use of some annotations in the text is not clear. For example, the units of the system (Fig.8, the text in Section 4) are denoted with numbers like 210, 220, etc. – it has not been explained what is the meaning of those numbers (some internal coding? Do they really mean anything or could be substituted with any other symbols?).

Throughout majority of the text, the Authors describe the functions of the system components, however, do not discuss the decision process – what were the criteria for selection of particular sensors/presentation techniques. For example, there is no reference to the results/literature discussing the advantages of different approaches to sensing approaching vehicles, etc.

Summing up, the text in the submitted form nicely describes the (innovative) technical solution, however, do not clearly indicates the research process.

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “ The manuscript ID is 697838 with modification. We changed English moderately to meet the criteria clearly. We also modified annotations directly to point out their figures and written numbers.

We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the Applied Sciences – Swarm Robotics 2019.

The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Mingu Lee

Seoul National Univ.

08826, Seoul, Korea

+82-10-7925-4668

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is very promising work. Transportation safety is never a bad idea. With some work, this will provide outstanding contribution.

In its current form, there are so many things being addressed in this manuscript that it is difficult to follow well as written. This may be because the translation of concepts and thoughts to English needs much work.  The grammar is very deficient, making it hard to understand. Complete thoughts are not present in many sentences (a subject is missing, or there is no verb present, an incorrect tense, etc.). There are a few spelling errors.  Because of these factors, there is a serious lack of context.

In the introduction, the reader is presented with socio-psychological aspects that are not well tied into the core principle of the paper: driver safety. This is purported to be a safety system but this is not well highlighted and really should be.  The paper struggles with drivers feeling good about their commute, though the core element of the research is many parts of a system designed for road safety.  Not well explained.

Since this is a system, it is hard for the reader to pick up on an explanation of each element of the system. The authors try to address each individual system.  Some are barely treated and some are very detailed.  Perhaps if the authors try to better compartmentalize the 'system', it would be easier to follow because as it is, there is an alignment issue here. 

In reading this paper there are many assertions and facts before the research design is presented.  These are not cited and need to be.  There really is not a satisfactory review of the literature in the field.  The reader is not left with information that proves this design is necessary.  The reader is presented with social and emotional aspects and not with importance of safety.

What are the limitations of this technology?  These are not addressed. Several environmental factors come to mind; How does the technology work on a wet road? They do not look stable in a windy environment so would this be tested? What are the safety factors of placing the devices?

We are presented with a design that is over-explained at a elementary level. There are so many different parts being explained here and perhaps it would help to define the path better at the front of the paper.  What are the core elements of the system up front?  The reader doesn't know until well into the manuscript.  More emphasis on roadway safety is needed with citations.

This appears to be a concept paper, though not directly stated as such. There is no methodology or deep analysis. 

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “ The manuscript ID is 697838 with modification. We changed English moderately to improve the context more clearly. We also modified grammar and missed spells directly to explain the system easily.

We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the Applied Sciences – Swarm Robotics 2019.

The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Mingu Lee

Seoul National Univ.

08826, Seoul, Korea

+82-10-7925-4668

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting work for road safety. Definitely a goo technical contribution that deserves some sort of publication. However, the current presentation is not acceptable. The issues of English writing, while not scandalous, they are constant through the manuscript. This slows down reading and eventually creates the loss of interest, when instead of getting the main contribution the reader tries to get exactly what the authors meant. As mentioned before, the issues are not big, but they accumulate (many of them) in the paper, which eventually makes it unacceptable. The organization is also of high concern. The scenario description is not clear enough. Actually, some of the illustrations at the end or middle of the paper, would be highly beneficial t the beginning, where the overall system must be described. I suggest describing the scenarios of applicability of the proposed robot to help illustrate why we need them. Some of the figures are not clear enough due to lack of quality. Some of them seem to be taken literally from the referred sources, which is also unacceptable. The architecture of the system is not consolidated in a single section, but rather spread throughout the document. Please, if possible, use standard international sensor architectures from ISO, ITU, or IEEE to map your system. This would make your system interoperable, visible, and it would be clearer how it works, and which interfaces, protocols, and mechanisms are used in different layers of the protocol stack.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “ The manuscript ID is 697838 with modification. We firstly devoted ourselves on improving English to transform our idea to readers. ISO, and other sensor descriptions absolutely we will add in the next phase of review to prepare more on it.

We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the Applied Sciences – Swarm Robotics 2019.

The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Mingu Lee

Seoul National Univ.

08826, Seoul, Korea

+82-10-7925-4668

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Version 2 shows great improvements over Version 1.

There are some places where more context would help.  As an example, line 343 Mobile App Development seems to lay out how the qualitative aspect of this paper (emotional approaches) is applied, however it does not adequately support the relationship to safety (Fig 19).  This tie is essential.

The Robot Device images are not properly situated in the oblique views; Specifically there are incorrect image perspectives in Figures 12 (200), 14 (200b), 20 (1st & 3rd from left).

Where there are references to considerable research (line 45) or a plurality of literature, there should be supporting citations (multiple), and there are not.

Regarding grammar, the use of the tool Grammarly would greatly help this manuscript, though it is better than the first attempt.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “Safety Lighting Sensor Robots Communicate in the Middle of the Highway.” The manuscript ID is 697838 with modification.

We thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions with your advice.

The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with your opinion including 

(1) modifying image perspectives

(2) updating ties between figure and passage

(3) merging chapter of 4. Results and Discussion

• including
• 4.1 Sensor robot,
• 4.2 Mobile app (and inserted data flow between robot and app),
• 4.3 Summary of architecture (from sensor robot to mobile app)
• 4.4 Discussion

(4) and checked with Grammary Premium. 

Thank you for your review.

Sincerely,
Mingu Lee
Seoul National Univ.
08826

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made a great improvement in the English writing of the paper, we thank them for this aspect. However, the paper has not yet achieved the quality for acceptance in other important aspects. It still looks like a technical report transformed into an academic paper. Some subsections are made of one single figure and that’s it, no more accompanying text or discussion or link with other parts of the paper. The architecture of the system is still not presented in the appropriate section. Tall the description of the system is left in the section of results. he Mobile APP discussion is interesting, but it is still disconnected from the main topic of the robot to robot communication system. Figure 1 is not referenced in the text. Several figures and text look like a technical report or manual of the system, rather than an academic description. Some sentences need improvement. For example_ °In recent years car accidents have logs based on data that includes situation information”. This is too general and not specific. Consider something like this: In recent years, information about car accidents have been compiled by transportation authorities and car manufacturers (Reference)”.

The abstract of the paper mentions a new robot to robot communication system, but we don’t see in the paper details of any protocol stack, or information model, or message definition between robots and coordinating entities, etc. Section 3.1.3 has general information, but it needs improvement. Section 3.1.2 has not useful information consider revising including more content or removing it if appropriate.

There is also no description of the organization of the paper in the introduction section. The section of discussion of results does not really provide discussion, but rather conclusions of what the authors previously discussed between them. This needs a lot of improvement.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The authors have made a great improvement in the English writing of the paper, we thank them for this aspect. However, the paper has not yet achieved the quality for acceptance in other important aspects. It still looks like a technical report transformed into an academic paper. Some subsections are made of one single figure and that’s it, no more accompanying text or discussion or link with other parts of the paper. The architecture of the system is still not presented in the appropriate section. Tall the description of the system is left in the section of results. he Mobile APP discussion is interesting, but it is still disconnected from the main topic of the robot to robot communication system. Figure 1 is not referenced in the text. Several figures and text look like a technical report or manual of the system, rather than an academic description. Some sentences need improvement. For example_ °In recent years car accidents have logs based on data that includes situation information”. This is too general and not specific. Consider something like this: In recent years, information about car accidents have been compiled by transportation authorities and car manufacturers (Reference)”.

The abstract of the paper mentions a new robot to robot communication system, but we don’t see in the paper details of any protocol stack, or information model, or message definition between robots and coordinating entities, etc. Section 3.1.3 has general information, but it needs improvement. Section 3.1.2 has not useful information consider revising including more content or removing it if appropriate.

There is also no description of the organization of the paper in the introduction section. The section of discussion of results does not really provide discussion, but rather conclusions of what the authors previously discussed between them. This needs a lot of improvement.

Response 1:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your consideration on our article. We rearranged several subsections to support themselves with sufficient passages. No subsections left only with a single figure.

We emphasized the architecture by adding Figure 10, 18 and improving Figure 11 with embedded computer structure. Especially, we devoted on building connections between sensor robot and mobile app in Figure 5, 10 and 18. Other figures also updated to describe more from an academic perspective.

In the first sentence of the introduction section, (in line 18) we started the passage with “In recent years, data science in the road is emerging bigger and broader with the development 19 of intelligence of things. More information about car accidents has been compiled by transportation authorities and car manufacturers[1].” based on your opinion. I think it fits well. We added the protocol of wireless TCP/IP with reference to information models. Thanks for your opinion of the discussion section, we discussed head to head. To enrich the discussion passage with relation to research results, we reconstructed Chapter 4. Results and Discussion in one. 4.4 Discussion is followed by 4.1 Sensor robot (hardware architectural design), 4.2 Mobile app (software development related to 4.1 - and inserted data flow between robot and app), 4.3 Summary of information architecture (from sensor robot to mobile app), and 4.4 Discussion.

Benchmark of US RITIS(ritis.org) concerning transportation data network (including non-public authority: agencies and third parties providing transportation information) was added in the first place of the passage. It will start a comparison with the reference system and infrastructure of our research. Sensor robots are components of the infrastructure, working as roadway sensors.

Regards,

Mingu Lee

Seoul National University.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has improved a lot thanks top the effort o the authors. However, issues still remain. We wish the authors could take more time to really think about the impact of new additions of text. It seems that for every adjustment, which improves the paper in one way, releases other minor issues that need to be refined. Please add figures that are really relevant to the contributions of the paper and that have been somehow described in the text. If there is only one line describing the figure then it usually means that it should be been there or that the explanation needs further improvement. The authors include Figures 1 and 3, but then there is not a great explanation about the usefulness of the figures. Are they really needed for the contributions of the paper? Take for example the complexity of Fig 3. It seems to explain a complete theory, and therefore while the reader can thank the authors for the intention of the authors to illustrate a topic, was it really necessary for this paper?. DO not start subsections with a list of items like subsection 2.3. Subsection 3.2.2 is again started with a figure rather than with text.

For the new added text please check gain English language correctness.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3, we authors appreciate you very deeply for your opinion on improving article. We prepared for the revision together to meet your points as soon as possible. We did our best to solve all problems checked from review together as soon as possible. We are writing to each other to appeal to the result of the research proving the design thinking method. We added detailed subsections on a benchmark of RITIS and its New Jersey case to refine the description of traffic information networks for providing drivers.

We modified several figures like Figure 2, Figures 7 and 8 to describe more precisely enough to be understood by readers who first meet the concept. We made several sentences robustly to represent figure concepts over the article. In their paragraphs, we structured explanations with multiple lines of sentences.

Former Figure 1 and Figure 3 for describing user-oriented view and causal inference perspective are removed now. They two figures were replaced by paragraphs on the stream. In the traffic data studies, many studies investigated the flow of vehicles from the perspective of the transportation authorities, and studies to improve the management of efficient road conditions. To explain this lack of research review, we added the content of the review instead of the Figure 1. Figure 3 firstly described the overall field of transportation previously dealing with the causal-inference method. Now on, it is removed to avoid misunderstanding. Instead, subsections 2.2.1 to 2.2.2 are more in detail to describe the prior method of dealing with traffic data. We finally modified all subsections starting with passages, not figures and lists.

Thanks to your opinion, we tried correction from Editage.com service twice to build the modified version of this article. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mingu Lee and other authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx