Multi-Objective Planning of Commuter Carpooling under Time-Varying Road Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAreas to be corrected:
1. The purpose of the article and the need to prepare it must be highlighted in the introduction
2. It is recommended not to make subsections smaller than 1 page, therefore it is recommended to logically combine some of them in the methodology subsection. If you leave it as it is, then you will need to adjust the name of the subsections.
3. We do not recommend starting/ending chapters/subsections with a table, picture, etc.
4. Correct the title of the 3rd chapter.
5. The analysis section of the results lacks the critical insights of the authors of the article.
6. The discussion section is too small in scope, so according to logic, maybe it should be connected to the results section.
7. The general conclusions of the article must be presented in a separate section, which must include research limitations, directions for further research, etc.
Author Response
Please refer to attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study addresses urban traffic congestion during rush hours by focusing on commuter carpool path planning. It employs convolutional neural networks (CNN) to explore the spatial correlation of traffic flow at adjacent intersections and uses a long-short-term memory (LSTM) model to analyze the temporal characteristics of traffic flow.
This article is effectively composed and features a robust methodology. Nevertheless, it presents certain limitations that are crucial to consider and address prior to publication, as outlined below.
Here are some questions and suggestions that could be addressed in the review:
Could the introduction be more clear about which cities or regions have the traffic problems that are being talked about? This might help set the scene for the study better.
The paper acknowledges the limitation of not considering common influences like sudden accidents, such as sudden crashes, the weather, and the state of the roads. Could the writers talk about how these factors might affect how the model works in real life and if these issues will be looked at in future research?
The introduction discusses the limitations brought about by survey conditions and tools. Could the paper explain how these flaws might affect how other people use the results? Are these flaws going to be looked at in future research?
The literature study gives a good, brief overview of the research that has already been done on ride-sharing algorithms and multiplicative matching. On the other hand, it might be helpful to point out any holes or restrictions in the body of knowledge that the paper aims to fill. I recommend creating a distinct section for the literature review and conducting a thorough examination of relevant literature, organized into subsections.
The paper talks about some problems with previous research, like how they assumed the speed would stay the same and how they oversimplified things like personal tastes and driver fairness. Could the paper go into more detail about why these limitations are important and how they add to the research gap that was found?
The paper's goals are briefly mentioned, but it would be helpful to give a more in-depth explanation of why these particular goals were chosen and how they help fill the research gap that was mentioned.
It is talked about in the study how combining several strategies can improve the NSGA-II algorithm's performance. Could the authors give readers a quick rundown of these methods to help them understand how the study was done?
It is also mentioned in the paper that standard methods have problems when used in real life. Can the authors explain more about how the ideas in this paper for getting around these problems would affect urban planning and traffic control in the real world?
For the suggested optimization model, "minimum total travel time and driver and passenger loss time" are given as criteria in the introduction. Could the paper explain how these criteria fit in with the bigger goal of reducing traffic in cities, and are there any other important criteria that should be thought about?
Lastly, the paper could use a better explanation of why the study's results are important. How will the planned model help us learn more about carpooling for commuters and how to deal with traffic?
Taking these questions and points into account can help the paper be clearer, more focused, and have a bigger impact overall.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNA
Author Response
Please refer to attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 1, Keywords: My suggestion is to include “travel time” in the keywords.
Section 1. Introduction, line 35, “…online car Hailing has developed rapidly, More and more…”: Please change “Hailing” to “hailing” and “More” to “more”. I kindly ask you to check your manuscript for such inconsistencies.
Section 1. Introduction: My suggestion is to include some basic (global) definitions for terms used in your research, like “carpooling”, “car hailing” etc.
Section 1. Introduction: Please include the structure (Sections) of your manuscript at the end of the specific section.
Page 11: Please change “Table 7. Specific matching scheme.” to “Table 6. Specific matching scheme.”. Please also renumber consequently the following Tables 8 and 9.
Section 4. Discussion: I think that the content of this Section refers not to “Discussion” but to “Conclusions”. Therefore, my suggestion is to change the title to “Conclusions”.
The paper lacks a “Discussion” section, where you must discuss if your findings comply or not with the findings of other case studies and research worldwide. Please also add the associated references.
Conclusions: Please justify how your research contributes to the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) since your paper was submitted to Sustainability.
Conclusions: Please include your policy recommendations arising from your findings. Then, please address each one of the recommendations to the respective stakeholder (who and how will benefit from your work - e.g., traffic management authorities, traffic control centers etc.).
General comment: My suggestion is to increase the number of your references (you have now included only 20 references) since the bibliography on the topic of your research is rich.
Author Response
Please refer to attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the corrections, but there are still a few places to fix:
1. A clearer (more detailed, wider) introduction at the beginning of the 2nd chapter is needed.
2. I would not recommend putting points (a), (b), etc. in the conclusions.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to express my deepest thanks to the authors because they have carefully addressed my comments.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
