A Framework of Vehicle Usage Optimization for Tour Purposes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Though the paper is well written with proper organization, still I feel the literature study and other parts of paper is not done properly. The authors must conduct a proper literature study and other improvements. Furthermore, the research question is not clear. What is the problem statement? What motivated the authors to select this study? For stepping ahead, authors must improve the following weakness:
1. Write a separate heading for research gap, problem statement, and proposed solution.
2. Line 5: instead of saying “In this journal”, use in the work/ in this article/ in this study/ this article.
3. Line 24: “Many research papers and developments have been done using machine learning in recent 24 years”,: 1) give the reference to your statement, 2) why your contribution is more effective than machine learning in year 2023. If not, then please compare your results with framework supported by machine learning.
4. Line 29: “In previous research papers and systems, the author and developer worked only for travelers; they don’t work for tour agencies”, give a reference to your statement.
5. Line 51: “Finally, in the packaging segment, we offer tour packages”, please explain your tour package here.
6. Line 78: “An entirely web-based tour and trip management system are presented by the author 78 in this paper [2].” Instead of passive sentence, using active sentence.
7. Line 105: “They have found that the significant issue for the shared use of autonomous vehicles 105 is how to project serving routes efficiently [5].” Use authors instead of “they”.
8. I will encourage you to put a comparison table in related works that clearly shows your contribution with respect to the previous works.
9. Is not it a simple website because you are just applying “HTML, CSS, the Tailwind Framework, React, 447 and Node.js”? What really makes it different from other platforms?
10. Is there any web crawler/spider to index the contents all across the Internet?
11. Make attractive and clear all figures.
12. This is a tour and travelling framework. I couldn’t see any type of risk/incident management tackle in this work.
13. Comprehensive English language modifications are required.
1. Comprehensive English language modifications are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please check the introduction part and make a solid reasoning based on main contributions of this paper.
page 7 with Figure 2. It might be better to show more information about design.
Since this study is highly focused on the practical usage for the usage of optimization for tour purposes, it is recommended to provide more practical applications on conclusions.
N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, congratulations for this important paper because there are no doubts that nowadays, travel agencies must try to maximize their profits.
There are some issues that must be rewritten:
Introduction must have some theoretical references. There is none.
In line 65 authors present various Sections namely “Literature Review” but in line 79 we have “Related Works”. The other Sections are different from what we find over the text.
These situations must be corrected.,
Section about related works is a simple description of various papers. It is extremely important that these different papers get all together and allow to have a major conclusion as well as a model that can support the current research.
Figure 1 (Client Server Communication) has no source.
In this section once again authors are presenting and discussing various aspects that have no source.
The “3.2 Mathematical Model” once again has no sources. Why were these variables chosen and not others? One cannot decide.
So, all this paper seems a collection of various papers and the author´s reflection is not based on any direct evidence.
References should be corrected according to APA norms.
Anyway, it would be important to have some more references, and mor actual to help this discussion.
Conclusions are extremely poor and don´t answer some of the key questions. Authors conclude that travel agencies can earn more profit. How much?
We don´t also find in the conclusions anything related to the development of an optimization process that will allow to reduce the environmental carbon footprint.
The coclusions are also very poor and should be more detailed taking into consideration the previous discussion.
Regardless the importance of the paper and the interest of the subject, this research has major scientific limitations that are not acceptable in this type of Journal.
English language is appropriate although a minor revision should be made because there are some minor mistakes along the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
abstract must be rewrite. In abstract must be methodology, results, validation and conclusion.
page 1 line 24, line 27: "Many research papers", "previous research paper" It could not understand. Need to rewrite this paragraph.
page 1 line 29-38: rewrite needed.
page 2 line 39: "There are some new features in our system." this sentance and paragragraph neet to rewrite.
in many places written as "Our result", "our system", " our service", "Our findings", "Our research" must be rewrite and rearrange needed.
"2. Related Works": "In paper[1],", "author in this paper[2]." paper citation format is not proper way, so authors should be rearranged.
"The article [16]": what does it means?
3. Methodology line 259 - 269 rewrite and rearrange needed and check gender equality "he" only (or is not she?)
"Figure 2. Database Design" figure caption must be rename and "we can introduce our database table" - what does it means?
line 280: "In this section," what does it means?
line 298: "need to modify the algorithm slightly", need to justify "slightly" means.
line 298: "RC to route i"- justifymeaning of RC and i
"By using this language", - this means =?
page 2 line 43:
for a scientific research paper, authors must be improve english.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript deals with a very interesting topic. I am rereading some corks in order to improve the manuscript. The title of the manuscript is very clear. The abstract and keywords do not need to be changed. The introductory part of the manuscript contains all the necessary elements for understanding the goal of the research, as well as the results and significance.
The literature review clearly links the research with other similar research. There are quite enough parameters to compare and highlight the importance of research. The methodology is explained in great detail. The results are given through tables and figures, which are very detailed and clearly legible and understandable for the readers. I suggest changing the conclusion chapter, because it is very short. In that part, it was necessary to point out the limiting circumstances, to point out more the innovation and importance of research results in theory and practice. I also suggest supplementing the references:
Stereotypes and Prejudices as (Non) Attractors for Willingness to Revisit Tourist-Spatial Hotspots in Serbia. Sustainability, 15, 5130.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065130
COVID-19 Certificate as a Cutting-Edge Issue in Changing the Perception of Restaurants' Visitors - Illustrations From Serbian Urban Centers. Front. Psychol. 13:914484, 1-11.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914484
Women's Role in Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction in the Travel Industry – An Evidence From the Urban Setting. Sustainability, 13, pp. 2-15, 8395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158395
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The mode of writing and expression sounds clear making it comprehensible for the reader. All the required information/data has been added to the paper.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Original Manuscript ID: applsci-2545794
Original Article Title: “A Framework of Vehicle Usage Optimization for Tour Purpose”
To: MDPI Editor
Re: Response to reviewer 1
Dear Editor,
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments.
I wanted to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful comment. Your feedback means a lot to me and I truly appreciate the time you took to review my article. Your insights are invaluable, and I'm thankful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your input.
Best regards,
Motaharul et al.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to congratulate authors for their review.
This final text is quite good, clear and all the proposed aspects to change and improve were fully achieved.
So, congratulations on your very interesting research.
Author Response
Original Manuscript ID: applsci-2545794
Original Article Title: “A Framework of Vehicle Usage Optimization for Tour Purpose”
To: MDPI Editor
Re: Response to reviewer 3
Dear Editor,
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments.
I wanted to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful comment. Your feedback means a lot to me and I truly appreciate the time you took to review my article. Your insights are invaluable, and I'm thankful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your input.
Best regards,
Motaharul et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
must be rewrite whole paper as per scientific research paper style.
abstract, introduction, related search and all other must be rewrite needed.
Please, get suggestion from technical research paper writing expert.
must be take suggestion or show to technical research paper expert
Author Response
Original Manuscript ID: applsci-2545794
Original Article Title: “A Framework of Vehicle Usage Optimization for Tour Purpose ”
To: MDPI Editor
Re: Response to reviewer 4
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes (under “Author’s Response Files”), and (c) a clean, updated manuscript without highlights (“Main Manuscript”).
Best regards,
Motaharul et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
