Optimal Siting and Sizing of Electric Vehicle Energy Supplement Infrastructure in Highway Networks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction of the article offers only a superficial presentation of the problem, without revealing its full extent. It would be beneficial for the authors to include a deeper understanding and scope of the issue in the introduction, providing the reader with a clearer framework.
Regarding the methodology, it is described in great detail, which I commend. However, there is a noticeable lack in the results section when it comes to presenting various options. I recommend that the authors incorporate more results or different approaches to solutions to make this section more comprehensive.
Despite the aforementioned comments, I believe the article brings freshness and originality. I suggest that the article be accepted into the journal with minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There are some typos that should be removed. Some sentences should be revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The issue raised in the article is very important. For this reason, more studies in the literature from the last two years should be presented. There is only one article from this period in the article.
Figure 1 is not sufficiently described in the text.
To increase the readability of the article, a block diagram of the presented model should be included.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper manuscript presents a comprehensive study aimed at addressing the growing demand for Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure to support eco-friendly transportation goals. The primary focus is on optimizing the location and capacity planning of Energy Supplement Infrastructures (ESIs), including Vehicle Charging Stations (VCSs), Battery Swapping Stations (BSSs), and Battery Charging Stations (BCSs) in highway networks. The paper introduces a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model that considers various EV energy supplement behaviors, such as charging and swapping, while minimizing the total cost and constraining average EV waiting times. The model is applied to a case study using real-world data from the London M25 highway network. The paper's contributions include the development of an integrated planning model, the incorporation of realistic waiting time constraints, and a focus on general highway network scenarios.
The paper is well written, and contributions are also interesting. I have following comments and suggestions for improvement.
a) Correct Usage of "Siting": The paper should correct the usage of the word "siting" throughout the title and content, as it accurately conveys the concept of selecting the location for infrastructure. "Sitting" is not appropriate in this context.
b) Enhanced Sensitivity Analysis Discussion: While the paper acknowledges sensitivity to tolerance on EV average waiting time, a more thorough discussion of sensitivity analysis could provide valuable insights into the robustness of the proposed model. This would enhance the paper's analytical rigor.
c) Elaboration on Future Considerations: The paper rightly identifies areas for improvement, such as refining the service process distribution and addressing the power grid's burden. To strengthen the research, it should discuss potential methods or directions for addressing these issues in future studies, offering a roadmap for further research in this area.
d) Practical Implications Clarification: The paper should elaborate on the practical implications of its findings. How can this research guide policy decisions or influence infrastructure development in the EV industry? Providing a clearer discussion of real-world applications and potential benefits would enhance the paper's practical relevance and usefulness to stakeholders.
I noticed many grammatical errors. They should be corrected before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Tha paper after improving is ready to be published
