Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows an interesting and comprehensive review of driver identification in cars. 

Figure 2 shows the structure of the paper - is too simple to be useful. Please make it more elaborated or delete it.

In Fig. 3 "on borad"  please check carefully the whole paper for misspellings.

Fig. 3 is again very simplistic. Is it really useful for the reader?

The main problem I recognize is the lack of direct comparison of results taken from different publications and the lack of deeper discussion of obtained results. The paper shows a simple enumeration without a broader discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "The Identification Methods of Driver in Electric Vehicles, A Review" presents a comprehensive review for the identification methods of drivers. 

The manuscript is well written, easy to follow and well structured. Some suggestions for the authors:

-in my opinion, the comma should be removed from the title. a new title should be agreed between authors and send to the editor for validation  

- pay attention the use of acronyms: they are defined where they are used first and used as acronyms in the rest of the paper. In lines 31,32 and 37, a bunch of acronyms are introduced but they where not defined before. Please check the remaining of the document for similar aspects as the acronym are use wildly and not defined where they should. It give the impression that the manuscript was assembled from different parts of other papers;

-Tables and Figures that were not created by the authors, should have referenced the source. for e.g figures 5-6 seems to not be created by the authors but no sources is referenced. please check the remaining of the document for similar issues;

-paragraph 2.4 contains no sentence, only a table. this is not professional at all, as the table can be referenced from a word, no need for a subchapter for that. please make correct this issue;

- in my opinion, is not clear what are the contribution of this paper to the literature besides lit review. I was hopping that the conclusion, results and discussion section will clear this aspect. As it did not, I suggest authors to restructure the last section in order to highlight the contributions .

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors provided good research work but there are some minor flaws as listed below

> Abstract need to be modified in a precise way

> Intro section need to improvise with more recent trends in EV and impacts as well with below references.

Rajanand Patnaik Narasipuram, Subbarao Mopidevi, A technological overview & design considerations for developing electric vehicle charging stations, Journal of Energy Storage, Volume 43, 2021, 103225.

Mopidevi, S., Narasipuram, R.P., Aemalla, S.R. and Rajan, H. ‘E-mobility: impacts and analysis of future transportation electrification market in economic, renewable energy and infrastructure perspective’, Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 11, Nos. 2/3, pp.264–284, 2022.

> Intro needs to add highlights of the paper.

> Summary should be clear need to modify in the shorter version.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please take care about using the same type of fonts in figures, see Fig. 2 and 3 - both use different fonts (serif and sans-serif).

The paper is now much improved but still, some minor problems remain.

I don't need to see the improved version again.

Author Response

Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions. Following your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. The fonts in all images of the paper have been changed to the same type.

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on the reviews, the authors have improved the manuscript and I consider it can be considered for being published within the Journal.

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions for our paper.