Evaluation of AV Deadheading Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper examined potential strategies of dealing with deadheading (empty) autonomous vehicles, to reduce potential increase in congestion. It undertakes a comprehensive review of three strategies and provides useful insights. Unfortunately, the introduction requires substantial improvement to set up the study and introduce relevant previous findings. Likewise, the discussion does not contextualise the findings of this study with respect to similar studies.
Abstract
Some minor issues with punctuation.
The abstract would benefit from some subheadings.
State a clear aim of this study.
Introduction
Some spacing issues after full stops (e.g., “krishna et al. 2018). Although the transition”).
Issues with punctuation/expression. For example, the fourth the sentence of the introduction is difficult to follow.
There are many statements in the first two paragraphs of the introduction that are not cited. There should be relevant research to support some of the statements being made.
The analysis of the paper is discussed before the reader knows what the analysis will be “An underlying assumption in this work is that the AV immediately proceeds to its next pickup location after completing a household trip and any waiting time is accumulated at that pickup point.” This statement feels out of place because the reader doesn’t know what your study is going to be doing yet.
What is the main point of the paragraph outlining “AV Surveys”? The relevance is not clear. This also represented a few of many surveys on this subject, it is not clear why these particular studies were selected.
Acronym ‘SAV’ not introduced properly.
The first sentence of the ‘Vehicle Reduction’ contradicts with findings stated in the previous paragraph that SAVs will be popular. More synthesis of findings is needed. Again, what are the main points the reader needs to understand. This paragraph feels like the results of several studies are being repeated.
The first sentence of the AV Repositioning paragraph is unclear. The reader does not know what you mean by AV Repositioning. This is a long paragraph. The relevance to the topic of investigation is not clear and the findings of studies are not synthesised together, more so they are repeated.
Way too many acronyms being used
The Mixed Equilibrium Assignment paragraph is difficult to follow.
Method
Description of the method is easier to follow
Results and Discussion
Suggest separating the results and discussion sections.
Methodology is still being described here; this information should be covered in the methodology section.
The paper generates some interesting findings in terms of the best strategies to deal with deadheading vehicles. However, these findings are not contextualised with respect to existing literature. In fact, there is not one reference to another study made in this section. It would be highly beneficial to cite other literature to contextualise the findings, so the reader knows how they compare to other related studies in this area. Are these findings in line with previous research? Do they contradict or complement previously suggested strategies?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Improvements needed.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsProposed paper deals with an interesting topic in terms of AVs traffic strategies, anyway this research work needs to be integrated with further contents.
INTRODUCTION
This sectio begins highlighting significant changes due to AVs operation mentioning "..make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality..", then topic is directly referred to critical issues related to deadheadinh AVs. It is suggested to increase details related to AVs benefits on traffic flow indicating data and flowchart, and once this topic is completed it will be possible to analyze critical issue related to congestion caused by deadheading AVs.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Describe how it is proved that AVs could lead to traffic congestion due to dead heading vehicles, and cite sources
CONTRIBUTION
This section contents should be briefly cited in abstract, while deeply treated in conclusion section to describe your research work contribution.
However, it is important to contextualize your assumpions on dedheading AVs:
- Indicate the roadway context (freeway, highways, intersection..)
METHODOLOGY
What software did you use ?
Does it was carried out a calibration and validation process for your model?
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
AVs main benefits are related to operational capabilities such as reduced headway that lead to vehicle-platoon formation. This aspect should be treated, being strongly related to traffic strategies.
Provide a better description of future perspectives related to your work.
Bibliography must be increased.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Author need to mention their exact contribution .existing work limitations did jot well analyzed .
2.how can author get the travel time 300 to 237 need detail explanation .
3. Algorithm need detail explanation each step also proper format .
4. Mythology is not detail explain detail eliminated author need to discusses clearly.
5. Author need for explain figure 4 because complex network for read also, result should be compare with recently methods
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Typos errors should be remove
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments are well addresses.
