Multi-Parameter Optimization of Angle Transmission Ratio of Steer-by-Wire Vehicle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research proposes an integrated model of steering angle transmission ratio for handling stability. The angular transmission ratio is optimized using a genetic algorithm. Thus, the peak value of the steering wheel angle is reduced by 67.12%. As a result, it can improve vehicle handling stability at both low and high speeds while also ensuring the ideal control effect.

This work is poorly constructed, with a lot of missing information due to confusing language, and the concept is not focused on the problem to be solved. Here are a few tips to help improve future writing.

1. This manuscript contains various missing concepts, such as the claim that optimization employs a genetic algorithm, which is not defined in the body of the paper, leaving only the line "the genetic algorithm toolbox built in MATLAB". We know there are numerous genetic algorithm methods, thus, the model is determined here.
2. English has improved in terms of both sentence meaning and grammar.
3. Novelty is unclear.
4. Please review equations (1) and (3); there appears to be an error in the notation. Strong references can be added to help support the mathematical equation.
5. Page 3, lines 89–93 make the text better and clearer, and pay close attention to how to construct a reference citation in your paper.
6. Page 3, line 95, is lacking a description of a symbol or parameter.
7. I understand what is said in equation (19)-(12), but might it be simplified for the reader? It is hard to read.
8. Recheck and change lines 220-225 on page 7 to match this journal template.
9. Equations (14)-(16) are extensions of equation (4); it should be noted that equation (4) provides the foundation for calculating (14)-(16). Next, explain why you selected distinct B and H values.
10. Can equations 17 and 18 be simplified?
11. Figure 4 provides a clearer description that emphasizes the concept you wish to express through the graph.
12. Lines 268-269 on page 10 contain confusing and unfinished sentences.
13. When Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b are compared, the highest value of the steering wheel angle is lowered by 67.12%; please explain why this is the case, how to compute it, and what the reduction means. I believe this comparison is inappropriate because lateral acceleration and yaw rate have different properties.
14. A solid conclusion in a scientific study should ideally include a concluding section that summarizes the key findings, validates the contribution, and suggests areas for future investigation. The conclusion of this research does not explain this.
15. Reference [17] is not cited in the body of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has improved in terms of both sentence meaning and grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would kindly request that the authors consider all the suggestions and comments found in the "Reviewer's Report" file and apply them to the paper. This will further enhance the quality and clarity of the work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the challenge of achieving low-speed steering ease and high-speed steering stability in electronically controlled vehicles by proposing an optimized control strategy for variable gear ratio. The authors use a unified model and incorporate a yaw rate and lateral acceleration gain optimized by a genetic algorithm to design this control strategy. The simulation results suggest improved peak steering angle at low speeds and increased stability at high speeds. The paper touches on interesting issues, but the way they are presented requires some improvements:

1. Please state precisely the authors’ contribution to the science? The most serious weakness is the lack of explicit statement and justification of the novel contributions of the paper. It presents techniques and combinations of techniques without clearly stating what distinguishes its approach from existing works. The authors exaggerate the novelty of their approach. They need to be more careful and precise in their language, avoiding generalizations about “insufficient consideration” of parameters in previous works.

2. The literature review must be extended to include a more detailed comparison of the proposed method with existing methods. The authors must clearly highlight the differences in formulation, parameter selection, and overall control strategy. Instead of simply listing references, they must critically examine them and place their work in the context of existing knowledge.

3. Lack of experimental validation: The study is based solely on simulations. The lack of experimental validation limits the real-world applicability and robustness of the proposed control strategy. Real-world factors such as road conditions, tire characteristics, and system imperfections can have a significant impact on performance.

4. The simulation results are specific to the selected vehicle model and scenario. The generalizability of the findings should be discussed in the paper. In addition, the vehicle parameters are poorly presented and have nothing to do with electric vehicles. How does the authors' work relate to the topic of electric vehicles?

5. Lack of description of the genetic algorithm and other techniques used.

6. Lack of consistency in:
• Terminology (e.g., “steering ratio” vs. “steering ratio”).
• Formatting (e.g., how equations are presented, how section headings are formatted).
• Citation style.
• The equations need careful checking for:
- Consistency in variable notation (e.g., using the same symbol for the same quantity throughout the paper).
- Clarity of subscripts and superscripts.
- Correct formatting and alignment.
- Proper spacing.
• Tables and figures are not properly cited in numerical order in the text. Table captions should be clear and concise. Figure captions should include information that allows the figure to be understood without having to refer to the main text. Axes labels in figures should be clear and include units where applicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The writing is better, structured, clear, and concise.

Author Response

Dear experts, thank you for your review of my article. The valuable advice you provided has greatly improved the structure and content of my article. Thank you again and wish you a happy life !

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript by correcting most of the stylistic and grammatical errors. Some minor issues remain, but they do not significantly affect the overall quality of the paper.

Author Response

Dear experts, thank you for your review of my article. The valuable advice you provided has greatly improved the structure and content of my article. Thank you again and wish you a happy life !

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript substantially in response to reviewer comments, and some progress has been made. However, the paper still requires further refinement before it can be considered for publication. Below are detailed comments:

1. Scientific Contribution (Partially Addressed). You made a valuable effort to clarify your contribution (lines 50–56). However, the novelty claim remains vague. It should be concisely stated in the abstract and introduction in terms such as:
"We introduce a novel control strategy that uniquely integrates [A, B, C], outperforming existing models [X, Y] by Z% in simulations."
Please avoid vague expressions like “the existing models fail to consider X” unless quantitatively supported.

2. Literature Review (Needs Further Work). The review has been extended, but it is still more descriptive than analytical. Please include a comparative table or matrix summarizing the methods, variables, and outcomes of key references. This would clearly highlight how your work differs. Merely listing related works is not enough.

3. Experimental Validation (Still Missing). The simulations are extended and more structured now, but the paper still lacks any experimental or hardware-in-the-loop validation. Although limitations were acknowledged (lines 355–358), the absence of real-world data significantly restricts the paper’s practical relevance, especially for an applied journal like WEVJ.

4. Electric Vehicle Relevance (Weak Justification). The justification that SBW systems are part of EVs is too generic. Please clearly indicate which EV platforms or technologies would directly benefit from your proposed control strategy. Are there specific EV architectures or constraints (e.g. motor behavior, weight distribution) considered in the model?

5. Methodology Description (Improved but Incomplete). The description of the genetic algorithm and control model is now better (lines 178–183 and Fig. 4). However, please also describe: Population size, Crossover and mutation rates, Stopping criteria
These hyperparameters significantly affect the optimization result and reproducibility.

6. Technical Inconsistencies (Still Present). Despite claimed improvements, several technical formatting and clarity issues remain:
- Some equations are repeated or show misaligned variables (e.g., formulas (4), (5), (6)).
- Subscripts and superscripts remain difficult to read.
- Variable definitions are not always introduced before use.
- Citation style is still inconsistent (e.g., reference numbering vs. author-date confusion in some places).
- Several figures (e.g., Figure 6 and 7) lack descriptive captions and axis labels with units.

Please perform a comprehensive technical and editorial proofreading, ideally with the help of a fluent English-speaking colleague or professional editing service.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please perform a comprehensive technical and editorial proofreading, ideally with the help of a fluent English-speaking colleague or professional editing service.

Author Response

Dear experts, thank you for your review of my article, you provide valuable advice so that the structure and content of my article have been greatly improved, once again to express my sincere thanks to you.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sending the updated version of the article. We appreciate the effort put into responding to the earlier comments from the reviewers and see clear progress, especially in expanding the simulation part and improving the description of the methodology. However, further substantive and editorial corrections are necessary before final acceptance.
• First of all, please clearly and concisely state the novelty of the work in both the abstract and the introduction – we recommend using specific language, e.g. “We introduce a novel control strategy that integrates [A, B, C], achieving [X]% improvement over [Y] in simulation.”
• In the application layer, further specify how the proposed strategy can be used in real electric vehicles – whether specific EV systems, such as mass distribution, engine characteristics or skateboard platforms, have been taken into account.
• In the section devoted to the genetic algorithm, provide missing details, such as population size and stopping criteria, which are necessary to ensure the repeatability of the results.
• In addition, the article still contains numerous technical inconsistencies: illegible equations, incomplete definitions of variables, missing units on the axes of the graphs, and mixed citation style.
• I recommend a full linguistic and editorial proofreading, preferably in cooperation with a person fluent in English.
Once the above elements are completed, the article will contribute to the literature on steer-by-wire control and may be accepted for publication. I do not know why the authors do not implement the corrections in accordance with the recommendations?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx