Passenger Flow Prediction of Scenic Spot Using a GCN–RNN Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have accepted my comments and have corrected their paper. The paper is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review!

We double checked the spelling within the entire paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Below you find my comments:

- Paragraphs and ideas expressed from line 71 to line 85 need to be inserted in the last part (section 5. Conclusions). In Introduction is recommended to declare your paper objectives, what you look for. Instead, in the last part you stated what you achieved by your research and offer a picture between intentions vs. achievements;

- then you have to reorder the quoted sources, starting with the Introduction. For instance, form source 5 (in line 37) you jumped to source 8 (in line 40). Source 6 is mentioned in line 107;

- I didn't understand what does figure 1 wants to transmit /communicate to the potential readers? Is more a general representation than a specific description! Could you add/change something? 

- Your research refers to the South Luogu Lane. This could be a remarkable and reference issue. Here you have to add few info. Why you selected this place? Is it the best connected place for transport infrastructure? Also in order to get a better picture of that place you have to specify the number of visitors per day in an ususal day and in a busy day! Also you have to declare if, during the year, there are significant differences between different months or seasons! In this case, can seasonality play an important role in your approach?

- correct the word traning with training in line 278;

- in your data regarding the dataset from November 2018 to November 2019 you discovered significant differences in passenger flow related to the month or season? 

- for the figure 8, on page 12, you have actually two representations! Maybe is important to name these pictures as Figure 8a and Figures 8b. Also you have to add on the ordinate of the axis system the unit of measurement (i.e. %);

- another recommendation is to have one new section: 5 Discussion and limitations (apart from experiments and results) and to continue with section 6. Conclusions;

- to be honest, I didn't understand why you inserted the figure 10 with randomly selected period  (August 1-August 3). Maybe here is important to say what week days are representing these days, maybe in this period were some specific activities based on a schedule (cultural events, shows etc.) and so on....? To be much more credible I would have considered the same three days of November (2018 vs. 2019) and I would have expressed true passenger flow fluctuation, for each day, one under the other (or possibly in the mirror)! An interpretation given by comparing the information would have been much more useful to interested readers!

- finally, I consider a week point for the paper the limited number of sources within the References section;

- please check and double check the spelling within the entire paper!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction section:
Many missing references must be cited through it;
in a citation list, please put a reference in each of the items otherwise, it looks like a copy;
In lines 44 - 46 please add references and a justification for it (... adaptability to data is poor.);
there are few misspelt words throughout the text; use an automatic spell checker;
Section 2 Related work
please separate related work and theory;
There are many subsections with one paragraph. Please review your text for a better reading structure;
Figures and tables must have a legend with an explication of all elements present in them;
Subsection 2.3, this development was done by authors? Otherwise, please cite their references to each one of the equations;
Section 3
What was the computational environment used? What was the computational complexity of the algorithm? How long does it take to run?
please add a flowchart to the code developed;
Please cite the link to access the dataset;
Are there all elements to work to be reproductive?
add all steps necessary to evaluation of the algorithm;
Section 4
please add a figure with raw data e improve its description;
Table 7 and Fig. 7 are not to quantitatively describe your code performance;
Please improve your results
section 5
Do the proposed experiments support the hypotheses made in the introduction section? How?
Is the proposed approach generalized?
What are the next steps?

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors and editors,

Below you can find some of my comments.

1. Introduction is satisfactory with emphasis on the goal of the paper. In paragraph 67 please correct as this is the paper not study.
2. Related work is a little bit short. Please, expand this section or explain existing papers more in detail.
3. name of Heading 2.2. is not appropriate. What does it means only  Graph? Please revise first sentence in this chapter. What does it mean? ‘graph’ consisting of nodes and edges.as shown in Figure 1
4. In chapter 2.3. you have just throw some teoretical equations without explanation why Graph Convolutional Network is impotant for your methodology . Please explain more in detail cited papers . In one sentences you have cited 10 papers from 11 to 20 without any detail about them.
5. What is pstations in paragraph 148?
6. In chapter 3, please explain analysed location more in detail. Why have you chose this location? You are naming streets like that all readers are familiar with this location. Whole text before Figure 2 is totally messy and difficult to understand. You need to give some introduction to reader about methodology before just naming streets in the town which is not mentioned.
7. All Figures of maps should have source. What blue flags on Figure 2 represent? What is gray circle in the middle?
8. In Figure 9 what unit is on the x-axis?
9. There is no discussion in the paper.
10. Conclusion is too short.