Next Article in Journal
Contrastive Refinement for Dense Retrieval Inference in the Open-Domain Question Answering Task
Next Article in Special Issue
The Future of the Human–Machine Interface (HMI) in Society 5.0
Previous Article in Journal
Effective IoT Congestion Control Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
A TOSCA-Based Conceptual Architecture to Support the Federation of Heterogeneous MSaaS Infrastructures
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Performance Evaluation of a Lane Correction Module Stress Test: A Field Test of Tesla Model 3

Future Internet 2023, 15(4), 138; https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15040138
by Jonathan Lancelot, Bhaskar P. Rimal * and Edward M. Dennis
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Future Internet 2023, 15(4), 138; https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15040138
Submission received: 7 March 2023 / Revised: 29 March 2023 / Accepted: 30 March 2023 / Published: 31 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems II)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The conclusions of the manuscript are rather fatal for Tesla. Therefore, it would be of worth to add: 

- a comparative case for another car model.

- to propose your suppositions, reasons, for the bad results.

2. Please compare your results versus other papers already published in the literature, suitable for the same car model.

3. please describe details of the experimental arrangement, to permit other teams to perform them.

Author Response

Please find our response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper presented an interesting case study that identified the issues with the lane correction module of Tesla Model 3. 

Following are my comments:

Please provide more details regarding the test. Where was it carried out? Did it include actual traffic?

What is the total sample size of the data? 

Is there any real-world data available for comparison?

What are the proposed solutions to fix the issues with the lane correction module?

In tables 1 and 4, why is the test data classified as 1.0.1, 6.01, 7.01, etc? 

If possible, could you present the results in graphical format? This will make the paper more appealing and easy to understand.

 The paper has too much text. If possible, try to reduce the redundant information.

Author Response

Please find our response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for answering all my queries.

Back to TopTop