Identification and Factor Analysis of Traffic Conflicts in the Merge Area of Freeway Work Zone
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In 3.2.1. Influencing factors line number 325
Elaborate in detail about the impact of road conditions with all required parameters perspective
L Distance between the upstream work zone and the merge area (Figure 5), m
IFw Whether there is construction on the outside of the merge area
IFc Whether the length of the acceleration lane in the merge area is compressed
Define binomial logistic model with the importance of a discrete probability model? why as given lines 353 & 466 from Sections 3.2.2 and 4.3.2
Section 4.3.2 define the K-mean need and purpose to use it.
Table 7 explains the need and importance of Discrete value.
from line 419 spatial distributions elaborate in detail
Overall research work is awesome for real-time case study applications.
But authors didn't justify in depth their contribution to this research domain topics, need to focus for highlight such contributions to know everyone.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable suggestions, I have revised the paper according to the comments, please refer to the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of this paper is original and related to the theme of the journal. This study identifies and analyzes traffic conflicts in the merge area of freeway.
This study is scientifically sound and, in my humble opinion, is aimed at researchers in the field of road safety. It provides a new method for the identification of traffic conflicts in merge area and a new idea for the study of traffic conflicts in complex scenes like merge area.
The references are adequate, and the conclusions include information on who this study is aimed at, as well as some suggestions for further research.
The manuscript needs some major changes in text and figures, and here are the suggestions and recommendations:
Section 1 Introduction
Paragraphs 95 - 98 There are references in sentences without the year (Ma et al. and Rong et al.).
Paragraphs 118 - 124 Sentences needs to be rephrased because references Dong et al. and Zhang et al. are mentioned twice (with and without year) in the same sentence.
Section 2 Data
Data collection sites must be presented and described more clearly (with photos from all sites and detailed explanations about merge area, length, width…), there were 5 sites but only 3 stations/sites are mentioned. Also, only photos from one site are presented. Figure 1 is too small and does not show the location correctly.
Figure 3 is too small and does not show the vehicle tracking effect correctly.
Paragraph 152 The term "mainline" is not appropriate, the term "freeway" is better. It should be changed throughout the manuscript.
Section 3 Methods
Paragraphs 255 – 256, 271 and 273 There are references in sentences without the year (Guo et al., Zhu et al., Bagdadi).
Please explain how the initial velocity v1 was determined?
Section 3.2.1.
Paragraph 321 Instead of term “expansion” more appropriate is term “widening” or “adding new lane to the freeway”.
Figure 5 should be bigger.
Section 4 Results and Analysis
Obtained data from each of 5 sites must be presented before Table 3.
Please explain how the initial velocity v1 was determined?
Table 3 has 5 intervals, and on location K176+500 on Figure 6 there are 4 intervals.
How many intervals were on each site.
Merge area on figure 6 is not clear.
Once the suggestions and recommendations are accepted, the manuscript will be worthy and ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable suggestions, I have revised the paper according to the comments, please refer to the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study aims to identify and analysis the factors of traffic conflicts in the merge area of freeway work zone.
Please see below further comments for consideration:
There are some typos in the paper, please correct them carefully.
Although the abstract is clear and comprehensive, the reviewer suggests summarizing the section to facilitate interest and reading for future readers.
Authors should supplement the study of literature by expanding the bibliography. For this reason, I propose below studies to consult depending on the subject matter.
In lines 45-46, reference is made to the use of accident data to assess road safety. I suggest also referring to the following recent studies:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-023-00591-4
https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8020030
At lines 110-111, the method of traffic data acquisition is introduced. To aim for the purpose of expanding the state of the art, it would be interesting to add two lines indicating the existing methods. For this purpose, I suggest the following recent study:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.02.202
Improve the quality of the resolution of Figures 3, 6 and 7, so that it is easier to read the inscriptions shown.
Finally, in section 5 the reviewer suggests reporting a few more results to make the study's conclusions more explicit.
The quality of writing in this manuscript is sufficient, so moderate editing of the adopted English is recommended.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable suggestions, I have revised the paper according to the comments, please refer to the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Best regards. Accept in present form
