Prediction of Crash Severity as a Way of Road Safety Improvement: The Case of Saint Petersburg, Russia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting study about road safety in Saint-Petersburng, Russia.
More references could be added in the paper.
Table 2. In the column "supporting studies" the reference numbers should be added according to the references list provided in the end of the manuscript.
In the section "Conclusions" are presented the main results of the study. I cannot understand what are the main conclusions of this study, perhaps the authors should write them again with bullet points in order to emphasize them. Furthermore, according to this study what could be the proposals to St. Petersburg authorities in order to improve road safety? The authors could add some relative proposals in the end of the section "Conclusions".
Acknowledgments (lines 447-449) This statement is the same with the journal template. Please write a proper statement."Institutional Review Board Statement" and "Informed Consent Statement" are missing from the paper. Please check if they should be added in the paper.
Author Response
Good day!
Thank you for your review of our study, it was very helpful for the research improvement. The authors revised the article, according to your comments. You can open the attached file to see our ammandments to the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is judged to be a research paper that analyzed a lot of accident data and analyzed it statistically.
The analysis was performed based on lighting, weather, infrastructure condition, human factor, vehicle type, and vehicle color.
In accident analysis, accidents are more likely to be caused by the simultaneous action of multiple factors than by a single factor. Lighting, weather, and vehicle color may have mutual influences. First, in consideration of this aspect, the review results for each factor factor, including multicollinearity analysis for each category item used in the analysis, should be presented.
As a result of multicollinearity analysis, it is judged that there are mutually influencing factors that do not appear in the numerical values ​​even for variables that do not have a mutual influence. It is judged that it would be good if a qualitative review opinion on such a part would be presented together. It is judged that it can lead to good enough results if a logical review opinion is presented even for qualitative opinions.
The present content focuses on interpreting and presenting the results of statistical analysis. If additional content can be drawn from the result, it is also judged that this needs to be presented together. This may be the direction of facility improvement to reduce accidents. If there is no such content, it is judged that the individual parts of the present content are the same as the results of the previous study (eg, a white vehicle is glass for accident avoidance, etc.), so it is judged that supplementation is necessary.
Author Response
Good day!
Thank you for your review of our study, it was very helpful for the research improvement. The authors revised the article, according to your comments. You can open the attached file to see our ammandments to the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
As a result of reviewing the author's opinion and revised manuscript, it is judged that appropriate revisions and opinions have been presented to the previously presented opinions.
As suggested in the conclusion and discussion, it is judged that additional research is needed on the interaction and influence between factors that were not considered in this study. As it has already been suggested in the conclusion that such contents will be implemented in additional studies, we hope that additional studies will be conducted separately from this paper. We hope that additional research results will also be submitted in the form of a thesis so that they can be shared with other researchers.
It is judged that it is not necessary to supplement the contents any more, but it is judged that it would be better after re-examining the words and sentences for the purpose of enhancing the reader's understanding.
Author Response
Thank you a lot for the review of revisions. We really appreciate your opinion and the time devoted to processing of the study. We were very glad to fix our shotcomings in the paper.
As you have mentioned in the review about the further research on the topic, of course, we will provide it separately from the paper and share it with other researchers in the form of a thesis.
Finally, on the issue relating to procedure of proofreading, it has already checked by the native speaker and revisions have applied to the previous version of the manuscript in the tracked form of word document, as the editor recommended.
