A Taxi Trajectory and Social Media Data Management Platform for Tourist Behavior Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the reviewed manuscript, tourist behavior was analyzed using social media and taxi trajectory data in Bangkok. It is an interesting study and appropriate for the journal’s scope. However, there are some crucial points in order to improve the manuscript. First, the research questions are unclear, and the findings were not explained distinctly. There is also an uncertain point on Page 7, part of the data extraction and classification. How to cluster for the function of place into the ShoppingPlace, manual or automatic? Finally, the Conclusion and Discussion section should be improved. All in all, some improvements are needed for publishing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A few questions remain open.

You start with data of a week in 2019 comprising 97,923 trips of which ~30k wind up in the final results as shown in the graphics. At what point are what amount of trips expunged based on what criteria? What percentage of all taxis represent the 4,225 featuring a GPS (and being included in the analysis)?

Where is the source-code, the conceptual models or the on page 4 referred to web service API?

Fig. 3b Date/Time stamp and TrajectoryID do not match when compared to Fig 3c. Chapt 4.2 what procedure was followed when TF-IDF scores were tied? Chapt 5 had rules been formulated classifying tourist trajectories and if yes, where/how (and how were they subsequently be applied)?

Chapt 5.2 why manual review? What had been reviewed? Duplicate entries??

Fig 10 + 11 legends are missing

Fig 10: had an assessment about disambiguation of the matching contextualization been carried out? How good are the matches?

The entire work relied on static files. Does the approach (see comment on manual review above) scale to a year's worth of data? Can it be rolled out to life data (sources)?

A major concern is that the study in not FAIR, that is, not even the metadata of the analysed data are referenced, reason alone to reject the paper. Similar concerns related to code, again not treated FAIRly.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper that has the potential to contribute and be of interest to the readership of this Sustainability journal. However, there are some issues that it needs to address before it can be published;

1) I urge you to accentuate the gap found in the literature, explicitly talk about the theoretical and practical contribution of your paper in lieu of other existing literature (especially part of the introduction).
2) Whatever insights? Can Author/Authors expand these insight words in the abstract?
3) This paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature but needs to be some new literature (2019-2020-2021) in this article.
4)There is a lot of technical and detailed information in this article, can't they be simplified a little more? (Especially part of Ontology Development)
5) The Conclusion and Discussions section is very short and could be expanded a little more.
6) The subject of the article is quite interesting and up-to-date. Congratulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some improvements were made and so I propose the acceptance of the article in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting the revised manuscript.