Visualizing the Intellectual Structure and Evolution of Intelligent Transportation Systems: A Systematic Analysis of Research Themes and Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for the effort and scope of the paper. It presents an interesting topic and has high readability and interest to readers. I believe that it has good scientific result. More specific:

1. Although the main aim of the paper is to develop an evaluation framework -i.e. a methodological framework- it could be useful for some additional information about the necessity of ITS to be mentioned. I think that matters about the compact city model, smart city model and sustainable city one may be briefly referred in the first/second paragraph (3-5 lines in order for urban and transport planners to be introduced to the topic on an easier way). Authors can find some information on a variety of papers like the following:

Bakogiannis, E., Kyriakidis, C., Siti, M. and Eleftheriou, V., 2017. Four stories for sustainable mobility in Greece, Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 345-353.

Xiong, Z., Sheng, H., Rong, W.G. and Cooper, D., 2012. Intelligent transportation systems for smart cities: A progress review, Science China. Information Sciences, 55(12), 2908-2914.

Scoffham, E. and Vale, B., 1996. How compact is sustainable-How sustainable is compact? In: Jenks, M., Burton, E. and Williams, K. (eds). The compact city: A sustainable urban form?, Spon Press.

2. A. Methodology may be explained on its routes; i.e. how this methodology was developed/inspired; it is something new or it is based on previous works in the same or other field of research? This may be mentioned because a literature review section is absent. B. Some more information about SciMAT may be refered; i.e. What are the advantages of SciMAT? C. Moreover, mapping procedure may be deeper explained (Has a specific classification technique used? Some theoretical background of the technique may be briefly refered; 1-3 lines).

3.  In the Dataset Section, authors mention that the data was retrieved from “Web of Science Core Collection”. It may be useful to justify why they have selected this specific collection.

4. Research from 1993 to 2019 have been studied. It may be helpful if authors can explain why this period has been selected.

5. Conclusion Section may be enriched. The result may be related to the practice of ITS and the planning models presented in the beginning (5-10 lines).

6. Finally, the “Abstract” may be improved. Authors may consider that the results should be clearly presented in this part of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would thank you for the comments and suggestions raised, but most especially for giving us an opportunity to continue improving the manuscript and resubmitting it to SUSTAINABILITY MDPI.

Having said this, in the following lines, we will address in more detail the particular changes made in the paper according to the comments received.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS (sustainability-904583)

Title: “Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of Intelligent Transportation Systems: A systematic analysis of research themes and trends”

GLOBAL RESPONSE

Following the reviewers' suggestions, the main changes done in the manuscript are:

• The ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION and METHODOLOGY have been improved.
• The Figure 1 was fixed and the rest of the figures are available in high-resolution to facilitate the reading of the contents.
• The references recommended have been included.
• All the suggestion of the reviewers was integrated.
• The CONCLUSIONS section has been extended to cover future research lines and other suggestions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWER COMMENT #1

I would like to congratulate the authors for the effort and scope of the paper. It presents an interesting topic and has high readability and interest to readers. I believe that it has good scientific result. More specific:

ANSWER: Thank you for your words and your feedback. Please find below the response to your review.

REVIEWER COMMENT #2

1. Although the main aim of the paper is to develop an evaluation framework -i.e. a methodological framework- it could be useful for some additional information about the necessity of ITS to be mentioned. I think that matters about the compact city model, smart city model and sustainable city one may be briefly referred in the first/second paragraph (3-5 lines in order for urban and transport planners to be introduced to the topic on an easier way). Authors can find some information on a variety of papers like the following:

• Bakogiannis, E., Kyriakidis, C., Siti, M. and Eleftheriou, V., 2017. Four stories for sustainable mobility in Greece, Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 345-353.
• Xiong, Z., Sheng, H., Rong, W.G. and Cooper, D., 2012. Intelligent transportation systems for smart cities: A progress review, Science China. Information Sciences, 55(12), 2908-2914.
• Scoffham, E. and Vale, B., 1996. How compact is sustainable-How sustainable is compact? In: Jenks, M., Burton, E. and Williams, K. (eds). The compact city: A sustainable urban form?, Spon Press.

ANSWER: The suggestion is great. In this way, we include the following text considering the references proposed:

 “Furthermore, ITS are related to the new models that seek to develop more compact, intelligent and sustainable cities, which relate urban planning and transport in the most immediate and future scenarios of these [1-3].”

REVIEWER COMMENT #3

2. A. Methodology may be explained on its routes; i.e. how this methodology was developed/inspired; it is something new or it is based on previous works in the same or other field of research? This may be mentioned because a literature review section is absent.

ANSWER: After explaining the research aim, it is explained that bibliometrics methods allows to answer it in a scientific, academic and business way. After that, the main bibliometric analyses related to ITS as literature review is presented. The authors considered that the bibliometric analysis identified doesn’t allow understand all the elements in one publication.

“To do this, bibliometric methods are one of the most common and accepted techniques for analyzing the output of basic research. Such methods are increasingly valued as a tool for measuring scientific quality, productivity, and evolution.

In this regard, there are bibliometric analysis about ITS in literature based on different approach such as intellectual structure [14-18], publications [19, 20], authorship [21-24] and journals [25], or different areas within transport field such urban smart mobility [26], automotive technologies [27, 28] and automotive supply-chain [29]. However, the above-mentioned researches are focused on a specific topic, which highlights the opportunity for a holistic approach that ensures consideration of all themes, their forms and components included in the literature.

Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to develop a holistic bibliometric analysis that evaluates the performance of the research field and update the intellectual structure of ITS from 1993 to 2019 [30, 31]. It will assist any stakeholder to define, develop and implement ITS strategies and to identify the main author, organizations, journals and research themes from a complete longitudinal science mapping analysis, where the intellectual structure is analyzed from a holistic approach.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #4

1. Some more information about SciMAT may be refered; i.e. What are the advantages of SciMAT? C. Moreover, mapping procedure may be deeper explained (Has a specific classification technique used? Some theoretical background of the technique may be briefly refered; 1-3 lines).

ANSWER: Right. In the methodology section, we have included the following paragraph describing the advantages of SciMAT and how it has been used in similar cases.

“Finally, SciMAT allows the definition and use of methodologies for the analysis of scientific maps according to the research needs and the period of time analyzed. In addition, SciMAT enriches the results using bibliometric indicators of quality, impact and performance. Finally, SciMAT research is framed in a longitudinal context to explore the evolution of the various structural aspects of a science field [46].”

REVIEWER COMMENT #5

3. In the Dataset Section, authors mention that the data was retrieved from “Web of Science Core Collection”. It may be useful to justify why they have selected this specific collection.

ANSWER: For many author, the Web of Science is the most important database in the world, covering a wide range of disciplines and enabling comparisons across scientific areas. For this purpose, the Web of Science database was selected for the current research. In this way, we include the following sentence.

“Based on previous reviews of the state of the art, this research focuses on the analysis of the ITS concept from a global approach, omitting regional conditions (e.g. United Kingdom approach) for further analysis. The data was retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection, bearing in mind that it is the one of the most important databases in the world, covering a wide range of disciplines and enabling comparisons across knowledge areas. To do that, the following advance query was used: TS=(“intelligent transportation system” OR “intelligent transportation systems”), refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (PROCEEDINGS PAPER OR ARTICLE OR REVIEW) AND [excluding] PUBLICATION YEARS: (2020), Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC. In addition, to improve the quality of the knowledge base, it was limited to Articles, Proceedings and Reviews, published in English. The ITS query retrieved a total of 7,649 publications from 1993 to 2019, of which 4,427 (57.88%) were Proceedings paper, 3,422 (44.74%) Articles and 90 (1.18%) Reviews. Finally, it is important to mention that one publication could have the figure as article and review or article and proceeding paper, and 1,075 of these documents are available in open access.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #6

4. Research from 1993 to 2019 have been studied. It may be helpful if authors can explain why this period has been selected.

ANSWER: These period is explained in the lines 143-150. Nevertheless, the paragraph has been updated to clarify this suggestion.

“In order to analyze the evolution of the ITS field and to avoid flatness of the data, a period of continuous and sufficient productivity was selected. The years as a whole were split into consecutive periods. While periods are frequently used to cover the same time span, given the low number of publications in the early years, the best alternative in the current analysis was to divide the time span into comparable periods. Therefore, the analysis period (1993-2019) was divided into five comparable sets: 1993-1999 (Period 1), 2000-2004 (Period 2), 2005-2009 (Period 3), 2010-2014 (Period 4) and 2015-2019 (Period 5). Finally, it is particularly important to emphasize that 2020 is not included in the science mapping analysis because it is still active.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #7

5. Conclusion Section may be enriched. The result may be related to the practice of ITS and the planning models presented in the beginning (5-10 lines).

ANSWER: Please find enclosed the comments related to urban planning and its relationship with ITS.

“On the other hand, the definition and deployment of new cities models requires complementary developments, especially in the field of Intelligent Transport Systems, bearing in mind that these determine its configuration, impact and evolution. In this way, the current research identifies the Traffic Management and Communications, Infrastructures and Systems as main thematic areas to consider for urban planning from three vectors: sustainability, smartization and dimension. Additionally, the impact of these thematic areas could be determined considering the main themes included in these areas and each theme. In this context the advanced public transportation systems, new vehicles technologies (intelligent, connected and autonomous), smart cities and ICT technologies are of particular importance.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #8

6. Finally, the “Abstract” may be improved. Authors may consider that the results should be clearly presented in this part of the paper.

ANSWER: The ABSTRACT has been improved, including the main results obtained.

“To this purpose, the publications related to ITS from 1993 to 2019 available at Web of Science have been retrieved (7,649 publications) and analyzed. Finally, one of the main results is the latest research themes map of ITS, considering its intellectual structure, evolution and relationship. It assists the definition and implementation of strategies, identification of the scientific, academic and business opportunities, and future research lines to consolidate the role of ITS in the new cities models.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your paper to Sustainability. Its interesting approach to topic of ITS. I would like to propose you some improvements of your first version of paper.

1. Line 47 [1-5] this is a very bad for citing references. It will be much better that for each reference you have at least two-three sentence way this reference is crucial for your research. In this way it is that you build up references list.
2. Line 82 – it will be very useful for readers to have a block diagram of methodology.
3. Figure 1 a part something is wrong with symbols.
4. Line 118 – also there is a different between transportation (US) and transport (UK). So, its necessary to explain this issue in your paper.
5. Line 122- 125 – need to add percentages [%].
6. Line 129 – “… was to divide the time span into comparable periods …” please explain time spans. With what parameter is connected?
7. Line 146 – its not good to start paragraph with “look at (something)”.
8. Figure 2 – 2020 is surplus! Also, figure plus table on some figure. It’s very confusing.
9. Line 234 – “… is presented below …” – please rewrite in scientific manner.
10. Line 234 – please explain a difference between h-index and H-Classics.
11. Its blurry how you calculate H-Classics. In this part you are mixing h-index and H-Classics. It needs to be elaborate very precisely.
12. Figure 3 – missing numbers of publications for 2018 and 2019, 2929 is surplus.
13. Figure 4 – its not readable! You have five figures and one table together. Need to be revised and redone.
14. In conclusion you need to add some concrete results of your numerical findings.

Overall, its interesting research that need more effort is results presentation and clarity for readers.

Regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would thank you for the comments and suggestions raised, but most especially for giving us an opportunity to continue improving the manuscript and resubmitting it to SUSTAINABILITY MDPI.

Having said this, in the following lines, we will address in more detail the particular changes made in the paper according to the comments received.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS (sustainability-904583)

Title: “Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of Intelligent Transportation Systems: A systematic analysis of research themes and trends”

GLOBAL RESPONSE

Following the reviewers' suggestions, the main changes done in the manuscript are:

• The ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION and METHODOLOGY have been improved.
• The Figure 1 was fixed and the rest of the figures are available in high-resolution to facilitate the reading of the contents.
• The references recommended have been included.
• All the suggestion of the reviewers was integrated.
• The CONCLUSIONS section has been extended to cover future research lines and other suggestions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWER COMMENT #1

Thank you for submitting your paper to Sustainability. Its interesting approach to topic of ITS. I would like to propose you some improvements of your first version of paper.

ANSWER: Thank you for your words and your feedback. Please find below the response to your review.

REVIEWER COMMENT #2

Line 47 [1-5] this is a very bad for citing references. It will be much better that for each reference you have at least two-three sentence way this reference is crucial for your research. In this way it is that you build up references list.

ANSWER: This paragraph was improved considering the reviewers’ feedback. Please find enclosed the last version of it.

“The society is immersed in complex and rapidly changing scenarios. These scenarios demand dynamic strategies and innovative solutions, but above all, sustainable over time. One of the main challenges facing society is related to population and cities growth, and how this demand intelligent, lean and sustainable transport solutions [1]. Furthermore, ITS are related to the new models that seek to develop more compact, intelligent and sustainable cities, which relate urban planning and transport in the most immediate and future scenarios of these [2-4]. It is no longer enough to define strategies that only consider the increase of infrastructures, keeping in mind that economic resources are limited [5].”

REVIEWER COMMENT #3

Line 82 – it will be very useful for readers to have a block diagram of methodology.

ANSWER: In the figure 1, a methodology steps was included.

REVIEWER COMMENT #4

Figure 1 a part something is wrong with symbols.

ANSWER: The figure 1 has been fixed.

REVIEWER COMMENT #5

Line 118 – also there is a different between transportation (US) and transport (UK). So, its necessary to explain this issue in your paper.

ANSWER: The current research is focused in the global approach of term ITS. In this way, the authors are aware that in UK this term has two meanings, and for this reason we are working in a second research to understand if the UK meaning is fitted to global approach or not. Nevertheless, if the reviewer considers that the analysis has to include both meanings, it could be considered by the authors. Finally, bearing in mind the reviewer comment, the paragraph of the query was updated.

“Based on previous reviews of the state of the art, this research focuses on the analysis of the ITS concept from a global approach, omitting regional conditions (i.e. United Kingdom approach) for further analysis. The data was retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection, bearing in mind that it is the one of the most important databases in the world, covering a wide range of disciplines and enabling comparisons across knowledge areas. To do that, the following advance query was used: TS=(“intelligent transportation system” OR “intelligent transportation systems”), refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (PROCEEDINGS PAPER OR ARTICLE OR REVIEW) AND [excluding] PUBLICATION YEARS: (2020), Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC. In addition, to improve the quality of the knowledge base, it was limited to Articles, Proceedings and Reviews, published in English. The ITS query retrieved a total of 7,649 publications from 1993 to 2019, of which 4,427 (57.88%) were Proceedings paper, 3,422 (44.74%) Articles and 90 (1.18%) Reviews. Finally, it is important to mention that one publication could have the figure as article and review or article and proceeding paper, and 1,075 of these documents are available in open access.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #6

Line 122- 125 – need to add percentages [%].

ANSWER: Ok, the % is added.

“The ITS query retrieved a total of 7,649 publications from 1993 to 2019, of which 4,427 (57.88%) were Proceedings paper, 3,422 (44.74%) Articles and 90 (1.18%) Reviews. Finally, it is important to mention that one publication could have the figure as article and review or article and proceeding paper, and on the other hand 1,075 of these documents are available in open access.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #7

Line 129 – “… was to divide the time span into comparable periods …” please explain time spans. With what parameter is connected?

ANSWER: Initially, the periods have a similar number of years. In this case, the first period has covers two years more than other periods. This situation is related to the initial year defined (1993) and the low production during the firsts years. The rest of periods have covers five years. It is explained from line 149 to 152.

REVIEWER COMMENT #8

Line 146 – its not good to start paragraph with “look at (something)”.

ANSWER: The line number does not match with any paragraph. Please, let us know the paragraph to fix it.

REVIEWER COMMENT #9

Figure 2 – 2020 is surplus! Also, figure plus table on some figure. It’s very confusing.

ANSWER: The 2020 is included as reference. This reference allows understand how is evolving the field and detect potential opportunities. The table is included to give more information. Nevertheless, if the reviewer and editor consider that the figure is not clear, the author are agree to update it

REVIEWER COMMENT #10

Line 234 – “… is presented below …” – please rewrite in scientific manner.

ANSWER: It sentence was updated.

“In what follows an outline is provided of the h-index and H-Classics analysis.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #11

Line 234 – please explain a difference between h-index and H-Classics.

ANSWER: The difference between h-index and H-Classics is explained in the first paragraph of Section 3.3. If it is not sufficiently clear, we could describe with more detail.

REVIEWER COMMENT #12

Its blurry how you calculate H-Classics. In this part you are mixing h-index and H-Classics. It needs to be elaborate very precisely.

ANSWER: For this case, the h-index is obtained from Web of Science. Using this index as reference, the publications are arranged (H-Classics). This situation is explained in the first part of the Section 3.3. Additionally, the reference of the use of h-index and H-Classics in included. If it is not sufficiently clear, we could describe with more detail.

REVIEWER COMMENT #13

Figure 3 – missing numbers of publications for 2018 and 2019, 2929 is surplus.

ANSWER: The figure 3 shows the distribution of the H-Classics publications from 1993 to 2019. In this case, there are not H-Classics publications in 2018 and 2019. On the other hand, 2020 is included in the graph to visualize the state of the cites achieved by these publications at July 31, 2020. If the reviewer considers necessary, the 2020 year could be excluded.

REVIEWER COMMENT #14

Figure 4 – its not readable! You have five figures and one table together. Need to be revised and redone.

ANSWER: The figure is not readable because the system reduces the resolution of it. We test the figure in high-resolution and it is displayed and printed properly. In this way, it is recommend to keep the figure and table as one figure because the reader could extract a individual and collective conclusions. Nevertheless, we include a individual configuration and if the reviewer and editor consider that the figure has to be splitted figures, the authors are agreed with the change.

REVIEWER COMMENT #15

In conclusion you need to add some concrete results of your numerical findings.

ANSWER: The following conclusions have been included.

“The ITS field presents publications coauthorized by 15,428 researchers from 3,810 organizations and 108 different countries during the period 1993-2019. A number of 7,649 publications with 68,128 citations achieved according to Web of Science Core Collection. The most productive authors are Zhang, Y., Boukerche, A., Zhang, J., Li, X., Onieva, E., Zhang, L., Wang, F. Y., Milanes, V., Perez, J., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, J., Chen, C., Calafate, C. T., Cano, J. C. and Li, Y. and the most cited are Wang, F. Y., Karlaftis, M. G., Milanes, V., Vlahogianni, E. I., Lv, Y. S., Golias, J. C., Li, Z. X., Chen, C., Duan, Y. J. and Kang, W. W. The correspondence between the most productive and most cited authors reflects the balance and quality of the publications covered ITS field.

In such a way, the most productive organizations are Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of California System, Tsinghua University, Beijing Jiaotong University, State University System of Florida, Tongji University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Southeast University China, Institute of Automation CAS, National Chiao Tung University, Indian Institute of Technology System IIT System and University of California Berkeley.

Regarding to relevant bibliometric indexes, the ITS field presents an h-index of 106, an indicator that reflects the number of reference publications for their impact on its development. This group of publications concentrate 22,211 citations and present an average of 209.54 citations each. The authors with more than one publication within the most cited are Wang, F. Y., Karlaftis, M. G., Adeli, H., Golias, J. C., Milanes, V., Rilett, L. R., Shladover, S. E., Vlahogianni, E. I., Williams, B. M., Bertozzi, M., Broggi, A., Chabini, I., Cheng, X., Dia, H., Fan, K. C., Fascioli, A., Jiang, X. M., Li, L., Trepanier, M., Yan, G. J., Yang, L. Q. and Zeadally, S. With regard to the organizations with the most relevant publications, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has 8 publications, University of California System has 7 publications, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT, National Technical University of Athens and University of California Berkeley have 5 publications each, Institute of Automation CAS, Tsinghua University and University of Waterloo have 4 publications each, and National University of Defense Technology China, Ohio State University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, State University System of Florida, University of Montreal, University of Washington and University of Washington Seattle have 3 publications each. This coincides with the results obtained initially, which reflects a coherence between productivity and the impact of authors and organizations.”

REVIEWER COMMENT #16

Overall, its interesting research that need more effort is results presentation and clarity for readers.

Regards,

ANSWER: Taking into account the comments of the reviewers and the editor, we consider that the work has improved its content and impact. We appreciate the comments and remain at your disposal for any feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the new version of your paper.

Still, it is not clearly explained different between h-index and H-Classics analysis. You have stated that the reader can use [47] and [35] for consultation. Overall, the concept of h-index is evident, and scholars are regularly using. H-Classics is a novel concept that has been introduced in paper [47] publish in 2014. I can not find any calculation of H-Classics. Significantly, the following sentence is not understandable: “Based on the outcomes of the advance query executed, the citation performance for the H Classics publications is reported in the following indicators” (line 280-281).

The whole paragraph is very generic written and hard to understand. I will (and scholars) like to be able to replicate your findings.

Its must be written straightforwardly so that each scholar can do the same experiment.

Regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would thank you for the comments and suggestions raised, but most especially for giving us an opportunity to continue improving the manuscript and resubmitting it to SUSTAINABILITY MDPI.

Having said this, in the following lines, we will address in more detail the particular changes made in the paper according to the comments received.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS (sustainability-904583)

Title: “Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of Intelligent Transportation Systems: A systematic analysis of research themes and trends”

GLOBAL RESPONSE

Following the reviewers' suggestions, the main changes done in the manuscript are:

• The role of H-Classics and h-index was updated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWER COMMENT #1

Still, it is not clearly explained different between h-index and H-Classics analysis. You have stated that the reader can use [47] and [35] for consultation. Overall, the concept of h-index is evident, and scholars are regularly using. H-Classics is a novel concept that has been introduced in paper [47] publish in 2014. I can not find any calculation of H-Classics. Significantly, the following sentence is not understandable: “Based on the outcomes of the advance query executed, the citation performance for the H Classics publications is reported in the following indicators” (line 280-281).

The whole paragraph is very generic written and hard to understand. I will (and scholars) like to be able to replicate your findings.

Its must be written straightforwardly so that each scholar can do the same experiment.

ANSWER:The authors update the manuscript keeping in mind the reviewer suggestion.

In what follows an outline is provided of the h-index and H-Classics analysis. The H-Classics method [47], based on the well-known h-index [35]. This mechanism supports as an impartial measure to organize the identification of the classic publications of ITS research field. One of the main problems to detect the classical or highly cited papers is the establishment of the thresholds. That is, some approaches select the N most cited papers, an others select the papers with more than C citations. But, both methods are biased since the setting of the threshold is very arbitrary. Contrary, the H-Classics approach uses the well-known h-index as thresholds. In that sense, we could compute the h-index of a set of articles, and therefore, this number will be the cut-off point.

In summary, this mechanism uses the H-Classics method to determine a classical publication in the ITS research field, and therefore, identifies the journals, authors and countries with higher contribution [43]. The H-Classics and h-index minimize the disproportionate weighting of the publications cited regularly or publications that have not yet been cited, empowering the analysis of publications within a ITS research field.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf