4IR Applications in the Transport Industry: Systematic Review of the State of the Art with Respect to Data Collection and Processing Mechanisms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe figures presented in the manuscript lack the academic rigor required for publication. They do not meet the standard of clarity, precision, and relevance expected in an academic paper. The quality of visual aids is crucial for the comprehension and communication of research findings, and the current figures fail to achieve this.
The writing style of the paper does not meet the standards required for academic publication. There are numerous inappropriate elements, such as the excessive and disorganized use of citations: “[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32].” This detracts from the readability and professionalism of the manuscript.
The selection of papers for review is not sufficiently representative. The manuscript fails to reference top journals in the field of transportation, which diminishes the authority and credibility of the review. This issue may stem from an inadequate selection of keywords or a lack of familiarity with the transportation field. The absence of references to leading journals undermines the comprehensiveness and reliability of the literature review.
In the selection of keywords, the focus on "4IR" is too narrow. If the study aims to review articles that fit the author's definition of 4IR, then a broader range of relevant keywords should be included. The current choice of keywords limits the scope and impact of the review.
Based on these significant issues, I recommend the rejection of this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study methodically reviewed the literature on the subject of the data collection and processing mechanism of 4IR technologies in the context of the transport industry with an emphasis on the areas of accomplishment of several studies and drawing attention to their limitations. Generally speaking, this paper is well written and easy to follow. However, I have several comments as follows.
The authors mention a large number of technologies in the transportation field, but I wonder what are the potential difficulties that may be countered in the transportation filed as the new technologies advance. How should be deal with these difficulties? I think these suggestions may be valuable for transportation administration.
The authors should improve the resolution of figures, include Figures 2 and 3.
The authors are suggested to pay attention to typos. For example, there is a missing dot after “…was first defined after the World Economic Forum (WEF) [4]” above Figure 1.
The literature review may be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.
Safety evaluation of mixed traffic flow with truck platoons equipped with (cooperative) adaptive cruise control, stochastic human-driven cars and trucks on port freeways
Technical and economic analysis of battery electric buses with different charging rates
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic undertaken by the Authors is relevant and up-to-date. Obtaining and processing data needed for effective and efficient operation of transport systems are important, especially in the context of urban transportation and supporting mobility and accessibility.
The connotations between the 4th Industrial Revolution and the transport system are appropriately explained in the introduction section of the paper.
The research questions stated in the introduction section broaden the expected (from the title, abstract, and stated aim of the research) area of investigation to all four industrial revolutions. It is unnecessary and increases the scope of the paper without adding anything to the stated goal of investigating the processes of obtaining and processing data in the conditions pertinent to the 4IR. Research questions and descriptions of the 1st to 3rd Industrial Revolution should be omitted.
The introduction did not present the research gap that the authors wanted to fill and their intended contribution – those elements should be added to the introduction section.
Usually, descriptions of the paper structure are presented at the end of the introduction section – and not in its middle as it is in the case of the reviewed paper.
The part of the introduction section following Table 1, Figures 2 and 3 should be clearly labeled as a literature review concerning the importance of the 4IR and establishing its links to the transportation system and technologies used by it.
The paper does not follow the usually used structure of IMRaD, it would not be an important issue if not for the fact that the used structure is a bit chaotic and certain elements are not provided in logical order – for example, Table 2 – due to its syntactical character should be part of section 4, as it summarises and provides common elements for paper chosen by the authors for their in-depth review.
The methodology described in section 2 does not allow for recreating the sourcing procedure used by the Authors and thus it would not be possible to verify if the chosen data (paper) set is appropriate – authors point to those limitations when they claim the need to source more papers for their need.
Some of the used database sources (like Science Direct) allow to obtain a very precise string of used keywords and limiting conditions (like time frame, type of publication, etc.). There is also no explanation for the choice of the database sources – why those and not others like e.g. Emerald Insight or Web of Science?
Section 3, which may be treated as the one describing results is the part of the paper that made me nearly stop reading it after the fourth or fifth page of very detailed description of reviewed works. I started to ask myself if providing so many details was really necessary? At that point, I still expected that section 4 would provide some kind of discussion of the results or a more synthetic approach (it did not...). There is also the question of what was the reason for providing graphical representations for some of the described solutions and not for others? Were there more important, groundbreaking, more visually appealing? The only somehow positive thing I noticed about it part was the fact that the Authors tried to group reviewed papers according to common themes (e.g. papers dealing with for example lane change were put together).
After lengthy descriptions provided in section 3, section 4 was anticlimactic – instead of the expected discussion, there were only four lines relaying which part of the appendix should the reader go to. Inserting here the previously mentioned table 4 with a short description of the most commonly used technologies would be better…
Once I saw the content provided in Appendix 1 and 2 I started to wonder whether it was necessary to include section 3. Table 6 (3 pages) and Table 7 (5,5 pages) make a lot more sense and are easier to follow reading material than the nearly 26 pages of text and diagrams that section 3 consists of. Trying to summarize the content of those two tables (6 and 7) would be adding an interesting conclusion for the reviewed paper.
Section 5 deals with ethical issues that are important when one is considering the use of transport system data but it appears from nowhere. Was it prepared on the basis of the Authors' literature review (if yes, why there are no references), their experiences and expertise (if yes, why is it not stated) and what is its purpose (limitation of the study, further directions of research)?
The last section, conclusion and recommendations tries to wrap up the whole argumentation, but it fails a bit at that task. The answers provided to the research questions are superficial and require readers to reach their own conclusions based on the data and descriptions included in the paper. Provided recommendations are taken from the analyzed papers and worked out by the authors. The proposed further research directions deal with only one aspect (or issue) of the data gathering and processing system used by the transport systems in the context of the 4IR.
There is no doubt, that the Authors put a lot of work into this paper, but the abstract and title suggest a completely different kind of article that the reader gets – there is a lot of data, but none of the proper synthetic results that would allow for further referencing or using that work. Unfortunately, it requires a lot of further re-work.
The language and grammar used are appropriate and allow one to follow the content without any issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for resubmitting your manuscript. Unfortunately, many of the concerns raised in the first round of reviews have not been adequately addressed. Consequently, we regret to recommend rejection. Below is detailed feedback:
(1) Regarding the previous comment, "The selection of papers for review is not sufficiently representative. The manuscript fails to reference top journals in the field of transportation, which diminishes the authority and credibility of the review. This issue may stem from an inadequate selection of keywords or a lack of familiarity with the transportation field. The absence of references to leading journals undermines the comprehensiveness and reliability of the literature review." For example, leading journals such as Transportation Research Part A/B/C/D/E and Intelligent Transportation Systems should be referenced. Additionally, there are too many conference papers cited, which affects the academic rigor of the literature review.
(2) Regarding the previous comment, "In the selection of keywords, the focus on '4IR' is too narrow. If the study aims to review articles that fit the author's definition of 4IR, then a broader range of relevant keywords should be included. The current choice of keywords limits the scope and impact of the review." This narrow focus may also contribute to the first issue. It is recommended to include more papers from top journals in the field of transportation. This will help the authors really understand what is going on and what has been studied.
(3) The major concern is that the manuscript reads more like a list of papers rather than a comprehensive literature review. There should be summaries, conclusions, trends, and insights that readers can derive from the review. However, the list and tables are too simplistic, making it difficult for readers to grasp the key ideas and understand the field better based on this literature review.
These points highlight significant gaps in the manuscript that need to be addressed to meet the standards of a comprehensive and authoritative literature review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have dealt with all my concerns.
Author Response
Comments: The authors have dealt with all my concerns.
Response: We appreciate your inputs to the work.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGreat work! I am greatly impressed by the nearly total overhaul of the reviewed paper in the comparison to the previous version (especially in such a short time).
The structure is far more logical and allows for far easier following the Authors ideas and argumentation.
Skipping parts about previous IR allowed to focus on the current issues, that were the intended (and stated) goal of the reviewed paper.
Adding the key words combination used for the search and elaborating on the choice of used database sources allows to replicate the process of data gathering.
Reusing tables previously relegated to the appendix in the main part of the paper to illustrate in synthetic way the Authors findings and adding the needed value for the reader.
Conclusion after rework provides appropriate (however rather general) recommendations and draws attention to the ethical aspects of using transport data in any capacity (important point that was previously illustrated by the section 5).
The language is still fine, both vocabulary and used grammar.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1）why the reviewed papers are from 2014, please add explain.
(2) "Figure 5: Search Engines and Number of Papers Retrieved" has not been updated according to previous suggestions. Here, MDPI can also be found through google scholar.
(3) It does not make sense to use both Table 3 and Figure 5.
(4） Do you mean all the papers from the mentions database between 2014 and 2024 were collected? or how do you decide which are the ones involved in this paper?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study reviewed literature on the data collection and processing mechanisms of 4IR technology in the context of the transportation industry. This study also focused on the areas of achievement of several researches and their limitations. Although the topic addressed is potentially of interest to readership and researchers, the manuscript needs some improvement to meet the required quality standards for publication. The following comments need to be considered:
(1) The significance and purpose of the study needs to be further highlighted in the section of Introduction.
(2) The title of the third section is too long to be suitable as a section title. It is recommended to choose a more appropriate and concise title to introduce the main content of this section.
(3) Some of the figures in the manuscript have low clarity, and it is recommended to improve the clarity of the figures, such as Figure 5 and Figure 9a. In addition, it is recommended to make some adjustments to some figures and tables in the manuscript, paying attentions to text layout.
(4) The format of reference insertion needs further improvement to make the manuscript look more beautiful and convenient to read.
(5) The language should be polished so that the goals and results of the research are clear to the reader. In addition, the manuscript requires careful review, including grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. For example, some paragraphs format after figures seems to have some issues.
(6) The literature review may be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows. Just list several as follows.
Impact of industry 4.0 on healthcare systems of low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review
A hybrid visualization model for knowledge mapping: scientometrics, SAOM, and SAO
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Good
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper's exploration of 4IR technologies in the transport sector is pertinent; however, its contribution is limited due to several shortcomings identified in the systematic review process and subsequent analysis:
1. The methodology lacks transparency and does not convincingly prevent bias, impacting the credibility of the review.
2. There is noticeable redundancy between databases, specifically Google Scholar and MDPI, and duplicated content within Table 2 and Figure 4, indicating significant errors.
3. The rationale behind the choice of literature sources is not adequately justified, undermining the systematic nature of the review.
4.Clarity issues, especially with Figure 3, detract from the paper's readability and understanding.
5. The paper insufficiently integrates sustainability considerations within its analysis and conclusions.
6. The depth of literature analysis is lacking, and the paper does not effectively synthesize findings or identify key gaps or trends.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease note that the template which was used for your manuscript is for the Journal “Future Transportation”. Please correct the header of the manuscript accordingly.
Page 4, ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]): Please substantially increase the text which is associated with the respective 28 references.
Page 4, ([36] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]): Please substantially increase the text which is associated with the respective 15 references.
Page 4, ([57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]): Please substantially increase the text which is associated with the respective 21 references.
Page 4, ([39] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]): Please substantially increase the text which is associated with the respective 29 references.
Page 4, ([106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [35] [112] [40]): Please substantially increase the text which is associated with the respective 9 references. Please present these references in numerical order.
Page 4, ([113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [46]): Please substantially increase the text which is associated with the respective 7 references. Please present these references in numerical order.
For a review paper, I think that it is essential to analyze more and to comment more on the existing literature sources.
Page 3, Table 1: Technologies that made a Revolutionary Impact on Transportation Systems (Authors): My suggestion is to include “n/a” (not available or not applicable) in the empty cells of the specific Table.
Page 7, Figure 9a: System Architecture [119]: This Figure must be Figure 7. Please correct accordingly.
Page 8, Figure 9b: Storage Process Model [119]: This Figure must be Figure 8. Please correct accordingly.
Page 9, Figure 10a: LSTM Process Architecture [123]: This Figure must be Figure 9. Please correct accordingly.
Page 9, Figure 10b: System Prediction Architecture [123]: This Figure must be Figure 10. Please correct accordingly.
I kindly ask you to check all your Figures for such inconsistencies.
Section 1. Introduction: My suggestion is to include the structure (Sections)of your paper at the endo of the specific Section.
4. Appraisal of Literature: My suggestion is to move this Section immediately after Section 1. So, this Section must be Section 2.
Table 5: Summary of Reviewed Closely Related Works: The specific Table is too long (almost 3 pages) to be included in the main body of the manuscript. My suggestion is to include this Table in an Annex.
Section 5. Conclusions and Recommendations: My suggestion is to include the main limitations and constraints of your work.
Section 2. Methodology: Please justify within your manuscript the selection of the specific database sources (IEEE Xplore, Elsevier Science Direct, ACM, Taylor and Francis, Springer, MDPI, and Google Scholar).
It will be useful to combine in one Table all the information included in Table 2: Publishing Outfits/Search Engines and the number of papers retrieved with all the information included in Figure 4: Source Selection.
Page 5, lines 153-155, “The search was limited to papers from 2014 to 2023 with the intent of covering research articles that did not date back more than 10 years.”: Please justify within your manuscript your decision.
Table 3: Search keywords and number of articles retrieved: I believe that the total number of papers retrieved is rather small for such a wide scientific topic. My suggestion is to try to increase this number.
It will be useful to combine in one Table all the information included in Table 4: Articles Accessed with all the information included in Figure 6: Articles Accessed.
Table 4: Articles Accessed: I believe that the total number of papers retrieved is rather small for such a wide scientific topic. My suggestion is to try to increase this number.
Figure 12: Model Architecture [36] and Figure 13: Model Architecture [126] have the same title. My suggestion is to try to slightly change these two titles.
