Architecture and Application of Traffic Safety Management Knowledge Graph Based on Neo4j

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is difficult to follow the introduction and literature review. For instance, in line 37, the authors mention that Stanford University developed the MYCIN system without providing any further explanation. I couldn't grasp the significance of this statement. This is just one example, but it is necessary to rewrite these sections in a way that enables readers to understand the logical flow of the writing and comprehend the process and importance of this work.

In Section 3-1, nine key designs are listed. Are these keys solely based on the authors' knowledge? I didn't come across any sources or references. Regardless of whether the answer is positive or negative, the authors need to provide sufficient evidence to support the correctness and principles of these keys and the framework.

In Section 3-2, Beijing is used as an example to present the results. However, it cannot be assumed that all readers are familiar with the specific details of this example. It is necessary to provide an explanation about the example so that readers can understand the basis for the multitude of tables that are presented (seven tables are provided with minimal explanation).

Section 4, titled "Design and construction of traffic accident knowledge graph," starts without any explanation, and the authors immediately dive into subsections. The section's title (without explanation) is confusing and initially makes it difficult to differentiate from the title of Section 3 ("Design and construction of traffic safety management knowledge graph"). This is another example of the lack of clear explanations and the confusion it causes for the reader.

Some figures have low quality, and insufficient explanations are provided. Personally, I found it challenging to comprehend all the labels and the logic of the arrows in the graphs.

While the study may have value, the presentation needs significant revision. I recommend that the authors thoroughly revise the article and improve its writing to ensure it can be reviewed again.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised our manuscript. The detailed responses to the comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review

 

Architecture and application of traffic safety management knowledge graph based on Neo4j

 

Danling Yuan, Keping Zhou and Chun Yang

 

Subject

The research topic is interesting and appropriate for the journal requirements.

 

Title

Clear and corresponds to the content of the article.

 

Abstract

Appropriate, including the purpose of the research. The abstract is clear, arouses interest, and consists of the goals.

 

1. Introduction

The content and scope of the introduction are adequate.

 

2. Overview of Knowledge Graph Construction

 

3. Design and construction of traffic safety management knowledge graph

The description is sufficiently detailed and understandable. The table and figure fit well with the content.

The captions cannot be read in Figure 2. I recommend using larger letters or fragment the figure.

 

4. Design and construction of traffic accident knowledge graph

The presentation of adaptation is understandable and well-presented. The figures are suitable for understanding the study.

The captions cannot be read in Figure 4. I recommend using larger letters.

 

5. Conclusions

Too general a summary. I recommend explaining the specific possibilities of using the method in more detail.

 

References

It contains the most important scientific publications, but it could be more extensive in terms of quantity.

 

Overall merit

The topic of the scientific paper is interesting. The description is sufficiently detailed and understandable. I recommend its acceptance with minor additions.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have revised our manuscript. The detailed responses to the comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved substantially. I have no further comments; although it has some formatting issues which can be detected and solved before publication.