A General Cooperative Optimization Approach for Distributing Service Points in Mobility Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present the article entitled “A General Cooperative Optimization Approach for Distributing Service Points in Mobility Applications.” However, it is not possible to extend my recommendation for publication in the current form of the manuscript due to the following concerns:

Avoid using first-person sentences. It is recommended to use third-person sentences.

I suggest restructuring the abstract section to be more specific. It must present a brief description of the background, methodology, results, and results.

Line 23: Please give a brief explanation about the examples of works [1] and [2].

Please add some references in paragraph 1 (lines 18-39).

Lines 40-50: References are missing.

The objective of the article is not clear. I suggest placing the main objective before the last paragraph of the Introduction section. Also, the novelty of the work must be highlighted in this part.

Please improve the presentation of equations (3) to (10)

Lines 263-265: Why the text is in an italic font?

The methodology is confused: Please add a methodology section. A chart flow could help to describe the methodology section.

Improve the quality of Figures.

Line 629: Avoid using apostrophes.

Can you include quantitative information in the abstract to see in a better way the novelty? This also applies to the end of the introduction as well as the conclusions.

I recommend you include specific references regarding mobility applications already published in MDPI Algorithms to link the topic's aim with the journal.

Maybe paragraphs from line 51 to line 62 can be joined since those talks of reference 4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. A budget constrained facility location problem is considered to meet user demands. A proof of NP-hardness is provided.
2. A COA framework is proposed which is a somewhat different "iterative" approach involving interaction with users. A standard approach is a "one-solve" model. The algorithmic approach is hard to follow I suppose and not crystal clear. It would benefit from a revision to make it more clear and to motivate the approach better. Reasons why that approach was taken are hard to  follow.
3. The paper is well written and hard to find fault. No obvious grammatical or spelling errors. Plenty of numerical testing is reported.
4. The paper has plenty of references
5. All figures seem relevant and necessary. Perhaps a simpler problem scenario could be explained and "Walked through" via diagrams

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have greatly improved the manuscript, it can be accepted.