Review on LPV Approaches for Suspension Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author presented a detailed literature review about Linear Parameter Varying approaches applied to vehicle semi-active suspension systems. The topic of the paper is interesting, but the paper does not bring new scientific knowledge. However, it is an interesting review paper.

I have the following comments:
1)    References must be numbered consecutively in the order they are first mentioned. (18; 19 …
2)    It is not appropriate to mention Chapter 2.1 as a single word Introduction when Chapter 1 is called Introduction.
3)    Figures should have a more detailed description (Figure 1 – what is on the right- and left-hand side;  Figure 2; Figure 3; Figure 5; Figure 6.
4)    All figures and tables should be cited in the main text as Figure 1, Table 1, etc.
5)    L 68. The citation format is incorrect [Els et al., 2007]. In addition, I did not find the literature of Els et al. In the References section.
6)    L 216 - same as previous.
7)    Figures 3, 10 are not cited in the text. This figure must also be described in the text part.
8)    The table label should be placed above the table
9)    L 187 – L 190; 265-267why all text is italic?
10)    L198 – rather, the web link should be located in the reference section.
11)    The abbreviation MIMO is not explained.
12)    The conclusion should include a discussion of that review and be more comprehensive.
13)    The List of Abbreviations is not complete.
14)    Why the table 2 is on a separate sheet and not in section 4.4.

Author Response

see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work reviews LPV related methods for suspension systems in a vehicle. This revised article has not a good organization. The authors spent much effort introducing the theory and principle of suspension systems and vertical dynamics models. However, as a review paper, the authors should clearly classify and taxonomy the related methods. The authors should draw some figures to classify and taxonomy the related methods clearly. In the conclusion section, it is too short. The author should also enhance this section. The authors have collected many publications (137). However, the authors do not have good to summarize them. Moreover, most of these publications are too old. The authors should find out more recent three years publications. Maybe, some fast open access-based publications such as IEEE Access and MDPI journals may be a good choice.

Author Response

see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments have been addressed correctly and paper is ready for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised article has addressed and solved all of my concerns. Hence, I think that the revised article can be accepted for publication.