Temporary Road Marking Paint for Vehicle Perception Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims to investigate the effectiveness of a new method for temporary road marking painting. The proposed water-soluble paint is claimed to be better than the tape from the perspective of camera- and LiDAR-based perception. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed water-soluble paint. However, more discussion may be needed.

--The contributions of the work should be highlighted in the section of the introduction.

--The authors should also discuss the pros and cons of proposed solutions in contrast to other alternatives.

--How do the proposed solutions benefit / affect the perception of autonomous driving systems? The authors may need to discuss from the perspective of autonomous driving perception testing (camera- and LiDAR-based ones as pointed out in the abstract).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present the article entitled “Temporary Road Marking Paint for Vehicle Perception Tests”. The article presents the following concerns:

• Introduction section: Please list the main contributions of the work at the end of this section.

• I recommend improving the related works section by including at least 6 new related works. Please consider those not older than 5 years and in JCR journals. 

• Lines 327 and 328: Please define M variable.

• It is suggested to add a flow chart in order to explain the general methodology employed of this work.

• Table 2: For samples 2 and 4, there is a difference to complete 100% of the ingredients of 0.5% and 0.25% respectively. Please clarify how the samples was completed.

• Also, Table 1 presents different percentages of binder and coalescing agent compared to Table 2. Please clarify in the main text.

• It is suggested that the authors justify the percentage of binder content and coalescing agent used.

• Please vectorize Figures in order to see details.

• It would be interesting if the authors could provide a photograph that shows how the samples were acquired by using the retroreflectometer.

• Line 403: are the authors wanted to cite the work [22]? If this is true, the sentence must be: “...to generate up to 3,500 bar, as shown in [22]”. Please fix it.

• I suggest adding a table that compares the main contribution of the work vs the already reported in literature with no more than 5 years old.

• Improve the bibliography by considering works with no more than 5 years old and published JCR journals.

• Please mention future works in the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns were addressed. The manuscript can be now considered for publication.