A Safe Infrastructure for Micromobility: The Current State of Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper bases on a literature review, that is conducted to find gaps in the 55 research areas of safe micromobility infrastructure, by quantitative analysis of research papers. The paper doesn't aim to fill gaps in the existing knowledge, but to point out existing gaps - mostly from the quantitative point of view. The paper accomplishes its goals, is well written, has clear conclusions and appropriate references. The paper is well done, but it's contribution to the field is moderate, as it synthetizes existing knowledge.

Graphs need to be improved (fig 9 - every field should have a label with name and percentage, it's hard to recognize so many colors, fig 10 is totally illegible).

Line 561 / fig 11 - 'Cartographic map' is an oximoron. This is a cartogram, not a map.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of this paper titled “A Safe Infrastructure for Micromobility: The current state of Knowledge” conducted a comprehensive literature review for finding the gaps in the research area of safe Micromobility infrastructure. My comments for this paper are: 

·        Proofreading of the manuscript is needed. For example, the title for section 1.2 is “Litrature” while the correct one should be “Literature”.

·        The resolution of the figures is low.

·        The authors should present the gaps in the existing literature, creating a new section.

·        What is the novelty of this research compared to other relative literature review papers?

Proofreading of the manuscript is needed. For example, the title for section 1.2 is “Litrature” while the correct one should be “Literature”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper conducted a wide and thorough review of the relevant literature with regard to the infrastructure for micromobility. It provides a systematic  summary as well as a scientific outlook for the future safe micromobility. The manuscript is well organized and clearly presented.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The abstract should be rewritten in a tightly structured manner. It should not be general 

2. Motivations for conducting the study are not fully addressed. 

3. Author(s) should state how this paper distinguishes itself from other papers.

4. The results section should be shortened - 

5. Author(s) should provide a recommendation section and highlight the limitations of the study.

 

no comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewer has no further comments

Minor editing of the English language required