An Analysis of Driving Behavior of Educated Youth in Bangladesh Considering Physiological, Cultural and Socioeconomic Variables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find the idea has certain application value; Following are my comments after reading your manuscript.

1. The paper is mainly based on the questionnaire, but the design structure of the questionnaire is not introduced in detail. It is suggested that the questionnaire design should refer to the driver professional questionnaire template (DBQ).
2. The sampling group of the questionnaire should be consistent with the overall proportion of society, such as education, gender, and so on.
3. The accuracy of the questionnaire should have clear statistical analysis, such as validity analysis and reliability analysis.

I hope my comments may be useful for the authors.

Best wishes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors conducts a questionnaire to validate the requirement to develop and implement a driving simulator policy and the environmental model. 

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic in real life. However, at this point the quality of this paper is insufficient because of the innovation and organization. Specific comments will be shown below.

1. My main concern is about the sample size. Only 70 respondents are surveyed in this study. The authors stated in this manuscript that “The chauffeurs of public transport in Bangladesh do not use internet properly. So, the number of partici-pants to attend the survey online was not much expected. ”I believe that that most of the Internet users in Bangladesh are young men, thus the survey sample cannot represent the drivers in Bangladesh.
2. Regardless of the sample size, the content of the results and discussion of this manuscript is too simple. I think improving the sample size and investigate some interactions of the factors may provide more insights.
3. Some of the references are too old.
4. The paper is poorly written and lacks a solid structure. For example,

• perfect punctuation marks, such as the last sentence of the introduction lacks a full stop;
• Reference 2 and 3
• Some of the sentences are too awkward

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The language usage throughout this paper need to be improved, the author should do some proofreading on it. Give the article a mild language revision to get rid of few complex sentences that hinder readability and eradicate typo errors.
2. (Line 4, page 1) Your abstract does not highlight the specifics of your research or findings. Rewrite the Abstract section to be more meaningful. I suggest being Problem, Aim, Methods, Results, and Conclusion.
3. (Line 95, section 2. Literature Review). The authors should highlight the shortcomings of the existing solutions in the related work section.
4. (Line 154, Section 3. Research Methods) This research does not have any in-depth mathematical connotation, nor has its application value been seen. I feel that more explanation would be need on how the proposed method is performed. If no one has proposed before a method like the proposed algorithm, this claim should be highlighted much more. Else, it should be indicated who has done this, and it should be indicated what the innovations of the current paper are.
5. (Line 208, Table 1. Characteristics of the sample) The authors should further detail the preparation of the dataset.
6. (Line 270, section 4. Result and Discussions) The authors also do not describe why the proposed outperformed other existing method. What are the parameters used in the proposed system and how their values are set? Also, how the parameter values can affect the proposed system? 
7. (Line 279 to 312) For the experimental results, it will be good to present a statistical test in the comparison of the results. This can help to support the claim on improved results obtained with the selection methods studied. The Limitations of the proposed study need to be discussed before conclusion.
8. (Line 313)  The authors make a systematic contribution to the research literature in this area of investigation. However, the future enhancement is to be described in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has carefully revised the paper according to the review opinions. I recognize the research work and innovation of the paper, and suggest that it can be published in this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made an good effort to improve the manuscript and enriched the survy samples. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the paper according to reviewers' comments.