Statistical Modeling of Traffic Flow in Commercial Clusters Based on a Street Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper studied the street network connectivity properties based on the Spatial Syntax method to simplify its connectivity property metrics and used the simplified metric and street network properties to construct a multiple regression model to predict the traffic flow. However, this study has some unclear expressions and some technical problems. Some comments that may help improve the quality of the study.
（1） In section 1, the logic of stating the Introduction is not clear, and it is difficult for the reader to understand the current research status and challenges. Authors should show the readers the main background of this research field. So that the readers can easier to follow the manuscript and comprehend the motivation of it. For example, what is the "A city is not a tree"?
（2） The depth and scope of literature review are inadequate. Authors need to add the Related Work section to fully discuss the current research status.
（3） The second section (Research Methods) should provide more detail, and the current version is more like a technical report than a research paper. For example, the author should provide a figure to show overall technical flow.
（4） The author needs to rethink the title of the paper. The current title does not reflect the highlights of the paper. The current manuscript is more about statistical analysis than forecasting.
（5） The depth of section 3 (Results) are inadequate. If possible, the authors are advised to add a map visualization that illustrates the spatial distribution prediction errors (maybe with other baselines).
（6） Typesetting issues hindered the readability of this manuscript. I think a manuscript with professional typesetting is respect for research. In addition, there are some typos and mistakes, the authors should polish their paper carefully.
（7） Authors should refer to recent references, e.g.
[1] Urban traffic flow prediction: a dynamic temporal graph network considering missing values (doi: 10.1080/13658816.2022.2146120)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Authors may revise the abstract to elaborate more on the problem statement, findings, and contributions.
2. Introduction is not clear. Authors may contribute more towards this.
3. Authors may elaborate more on the novelty/contribution of their work and how it contributes to the literature in the second last paragraph of the introduction clearly.
4. Authors need to be specific about their problem statement and the scope of their research.
5. Overall, the paper presentation requires improvement.
6. Results sections need elaborationtions.
7. Thorough proofreading is recommended.
8. A few of the figure's resolutions are not clear and hard to read
9. A few of the references are missing some information; you may complete them critically.
10. The conclusion is not clear and needs revision and clarity and alignment with the abstract and title.
11. Provided references are better enough. However, authors are recommended to consider more latest and related.
12. comparison with other existing work is suggested to include.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, the authors took the street networks of 100 commercial clusters in China as the research subjects and classified them into three forms according to the theory that "A city is not a tree."
The paper is well-organized. There are some points in the manuscript to be fixed:
Firstly, the "100 commercial clusters" term must be explained in detail. It will be more beneficial for the first-time reader.
Secondly, the author should expand the literature part in terms of "clustering," "SNA," and "sDNA." Specifically, transitioning from the definition of the clustering to "100 commercial clusters" will be much better for the reader.
Thirdly, the authors should present the novelty and differences of the manuscript from the previously published papers.
Fourthly, the "Results" part should be developed. Tables and Figures should be explained in detail.
Fifth, the discussion should be expanded, and the authors should present shortcomings in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no further comments
Reviewer 2 Report
Now author has incorporated all the changes . Now It is ready for publications.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well-written and well-organized.The authors revised the manuscript very well considering previous comments.The manuscript seems ready to publish.
