Real-Time Pedestrian Flow Analysis Using Networked Sensors for a Smart Subway System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting, presented ideas and prototype solutions are the most scientific and worth promoting.
The research was conducted by the authors of the article fairly and well described.
I have three specific comments:
- some drawings are illegible, e.g. Figure 2 requires graphic editing, in Figure 4 it is necessary to describe all axes so that the drawing is self-readable
- GPS system description (58-59) is too simplistic. First of all, GNSS is not only GPS, but also e.g. Glonass, Galileo or Beidou. Secondly, "a few meters of error" refers to an error in determining the position in navigation, for determining the geodetic position this error is smaller by two orders of magnitude
- in the summary, it is worth paying more attention to the description of "Future Works", and especially the practical applications of the system.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper titled "Real-time pedestrian flow analysis using networked sensors for a smart subway system" uses a methodology for the detection of the position in real-time of the users of a public interior environment, through the analysis with artificial intelligence of the information obtained from the signals of their mobile phones, specifically through the information obtained from MAC ID (mobile-specific unique identifier). The main aim is to display the congestion situation in real-time and to be able to transform and improve an indoor public environment.
The paper is interesting, easy to read and it is scientifically sound and well-presented.
(1) The Introduction and Background sections present sufficient references in relation to the technologies used to obtain and interpret the data, but the same does not apply to the necessary references on the use of this type of methodology, or similar, for the transformation and improvement of the interior urban space. These references are essential and are practically missing in the paper.
(2) Another important lack is found precisely in the discussion. It is necessary to present clearly and profusely the advances proposed by the paper in relation to such references and research with the same aims. It is recommended to incorporate a Discussion section.
The following comments and suggestions are specifically made:
(3) It is recommended to incorporate references to Table 2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfactorily resolved all aspects on which changes had been suggested in the first review.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your satisfaction with our major revision response. In addition, we will try to be more humble and enthusiastic scholars following your good advice.
