Drive-by Methodologies Applied to Railway Infrastructure Subsystems: A Literature Review—Part I: Bridges and Viaducts
, Cássio Bragança 2, Andreia Meixedo 3, Diogo Ribeiro 4, Túlio N. Bittencourt 2 and Hermes Carvalho 2,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is interesting and timely work. Some comments:
1. Title: what is the difference between bridges and viaducts?
2. The abstract is not easy to follow, please be more specific.
3. The motivation and knowledge gaps are clearly stated.
4. Table 1: the related literature looks like limited. How about using software like Citespace to summarize it.
5. Figure 1 is excellent.
6. It will be better if the authors could use a table to summarize the previous works in Chapter 3.
7. The future perspective is reliable.
English is well written, no comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest that the author should consider only literatures of state-of-the-art Drive-By studies that focuses on evaluating the condition of railway bridges (as the title of the paper suggest). Selected literatures on state-of-the-art drive-by assessment technique must be presented in matrix form for ease of comparison showing its strength and weakness.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the Authors for the extensive yet organical state of the art for this emerging topic. Many individual works have been done, so a resume of the different resuuls is welcomed. Just two points:
editorial: pag.8, reference to fig.4 is missing.
In the conclusions, I would ask the Authors to express their ideas about what they think should be most promising trajectories for next further developments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
COMMENT TO THE ARTICLE
The authors have done superb research. the article is very welcome in the field of railways. The review is exemplary and readable.
However, I have a few comments.
1. In the introduction, I miss the purpose of the research and the limitations of the research.
2. In the text, there were also some errors in citing articles (Error! Reference source not found..).
3. Perhaps the authors could devote more time to explaining the images. It is quite difficult for the uninitiated to find his way around.
4. Afterwards, the implementation of comprehensive machine learning methodologies, which include not only the extraction of features but also their normalization, fusion, and classification, is discussed in subsection 3.2.3.
Since the works mentioned in section 3.2.2 are still in the preliminary stage…
Unfortunately, I cannot find subsections 3.2.2, 3.2.3
5. Chapter 3.6 is written a little confusingly, as it refers to subsections that do not exist.
The authors should correct and complete this chapter.
6. I also miss one short discussion of the results before the conclusion.
7. The conclusion is well written, but I especially miss where the authors see the possibility of developing the method and where the problems of using the described method arise.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to express my appreciation for the effort you have done to revise the manuscript accordingly as per our comments and suggestion.
Thank you.
