Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is very interesting. The issue is increasingly being implemented. However, I have the following comments.

- The lack of chapter with methodology of evaluation with descriptions of measures and values progowych is missing. For example why values sup=2 and inf=0.3?
- The lack of chapter with explanation of algorithm (lines 288-307),
- The lack of representation presented by the algorithm differs from other similar algorithms found in the literature.

- Fig. 2. - the indication of BT sensor is missing.
- Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - no axle descriptions,
- table 1 - values should be rounded to integer,
- table 2 - the title of the table looks incomplete,
- Figures 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 - unreadable,


lines 134, 160, 326: "...Error! Reference source not found.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review, I am sorry for some of the problems that are in the manuscript due to the formatting that has been done from the publisher as the references not found and some problems with some tables. All of them have been corrected.

An explanation of the values on lines 303-305 has been included.

Table 1 and 2 have been corrected, table two appear XX to protect the privacy of the MAC.

The legends of figures 11 - 18 explain the values of the bars, they represent percentages.

In tables 3 -10 the axes have their title that explains what is represented in that axis

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a new classification algorithm to distinguish between an onboard Bluetooth device and the same device carried by a pedestrian. The algorithm is based on the number of detections of each device within the detection field of the sensor. Moreover, an algorithm allowing the classification of the trips of motor vehicles was proposed. Both algorithms were tested in a case study, the historical center of Valencia, Spain.

 

The paper addresses a quite interesting and practitioners-useful research question. The proposed algorithms are convincing but not so innovative. The results about the case study seems interesting and conclusive.

 

·         The classification algorithm for vehicles and pedestrians is based on the number of detections of each device within the detection field of the sensor. This practical choice is affected by some limitations, such as detection range of the used sensor, presence of traffic lights, vehicles trajectories, posted speed limits and network congestion.  I think it is appropriate and interesting for readers that authors address these issues.

I also believe that defining the thresholds of detection through an on-road experiment may not always be always practical. It could be more useful to calculate these thresholds from formulas that take into account the characteristics of the used sensors and of the area in which the survey is carried out.

·         Please check the “reference source” along the paper (lines 134, 155, 160, 326)

·         Please increase the readability of the figures from 11 to 18.

·         The legend of the figures 4,5,6 should be more readable.

·         The figures 7,8,9,10 need a legend.

·         Please add y-axis label to all the figures.

·      Figure 3: The readability of this figure would increase reducing the y-axis max limit.

·         Table 2 should be better formatted.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review, I am sorry for some of the problems that are in the manuscript due to the formatting that has been done from the publisher as the references not found and some problems with some tables. All of them have been corrected.

An explanation has been included to the constant values that are used in the algorithms in lines 303-305, these values are similar to those used in other algorithms present in the literature and have their explanation in the physical limits of speed.

Table 1 and 2 have been corrected, in table 2, XX appears to protect the privacy of the MAC.

The legend of figures 7-10 was decided to include it in text on lines 313 to 316

Figure 3 has been corrected.

The figures that do not have a label on the y axis are due to the legend of the y-axis label.

The legends of figures 11 - 18 explain the values of the bars, they represent percentages.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

Abstract

a)       Somehow, in the text, the objectives and the methodology are merged, making it unclear to the reader if the main purpose is (or isn’t) '(…) a new classification algorithm to distinguish between on-board Bluetooth device and the same device carried by a pedestrian when it is not possible to use the travel time for the classification due to the short distance between sensor ' (lines15-18), while in the Introduction section authors wrote (lines 69-70): ‘This article presents the study carried out in the city of Valencia to determine the use of motor vehicles in the historic centre.’

b)      Also, nothing is said in what concerns to the achieved results.

c)       A final sentence describing the significance of the results and the impact of this work on the general field of study, would be very much appreciated.

Keywords

The presented keywords are: Bluetooth Sensor; Origin-Destination Matrices; Travel time, Smart City; Traffic Management.

Nevertheless, other keywords are missing (example: Pedestrian & Motor Vehicle Itineraries; Urban Network; Historical Center of Valencia). Remember that keywords capture the essence of any paper and make any paper searchable.

A few tips can help authors to create more relevant and effective keywords:

a)       *If possible, keywords should be phrases of 2-4 words, while single word keywords sometimes they may lead to false matches (example: ‘Pedestrian & Motor Vehicle Itineraries’).

b)      Keywords make any paper searchable and ensure that author(s) get more citations. The most relevant keywords should be included; that will help other authors find the paper.

Suggestion: instead of ‘Travel Time’, use ‘Vehicles & Pedestrians Travel Time’, etc.

Introduction

It seems reasonable that Points 2. Related work and 3. New Contribution become:

1.2. Related work and 3.1 New Contribution

In Point 3.1, a last sentence should be added stating how the achieved results will contribute to the overall field of study.

 

4. DEFINITION OF THE STUDY

- Why is this title of section 4 in capitals, comparing with the others?

- Shouldn’t this designation change to method / methodology description?

- One would expect the description of the method here and not so much ‘a definition of study’.

 

In several parts of the manuscript one can read: ‘Error! Reference source not found’, like, for instance, lines 134, 155, 326, etc., etc.

Lines 278-279 – Authors wrote: ‘The results of the hit and failure rate in the tests performed with known devices are shown in Table 4’.

BUT, Table 4 DOESN’T EXIST! That means that ‘the results of the hit and failure rate in the tests performed with known devices’ are missing…

One may find only Table 3 and Table 5. Distribution of trips through the historic center, (line 343).

 

Line 189 – The Point I. RESULTS OF THE STUDY appears like a sub-item of Point ‘4.4. Description of the study’ (line 168). OR, does this Point pretends to be a new section inside a section (Point 4.4…)?

It is quite confusing. The manuscript structure must be improved, clarified.

 

Legends of Figures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 should be improved!

The explanation about the Figures and results end on Figure 16 (line 402). Figures 17 and 18 were left in the manuscript without any explanation.

5. Conclusions

Is the discussion of the results converted in the authors’ Conclusions?

In this section, authors speak about the results obtained in the study, BUT but there wasn’t any prior section about the "discussion of results". A QUITE CONFUSING MANUSCRIPT STRUCTURE!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review, I am sorry for some of the problems that are in the manuscript due to the formatting that has been done from the publisher as the references not found and some problems with some tables. All of them have been corrected.

An explanation has been included to the constant values that are used in the algorithms in lines 303-305, these values are similar to those used in other algorithms present in the literature and have their explanation in the physical limits of speed.

The keywords have been modified following part of their recommendations

Table 1 and 2 have been corrected, in table 2, XX appears to protect the privacy of the MAC.

The legend of figures 7-10 was decided to include it in text on lines 313 to 316

Figure 3 has been corrected.

References to figures

The figures that do not have a label on the y axis are due to the legend of the y-axis label.

The legends of figures 11 - 18 explain the values of the bars, they represent percentages. References to these figures have been corrected, there was an error in the cross references.

Table 4 was removed and described in the text but the reference was not deleted, sorry, it has been corrected by eliminating the reference to table 4 and numbering table 5 as table 4.

The organization of the sections of the results and conclusions section has been corrected, I am sorry but the original structure of the article in the editorial had been modified and it is certain that the structure of the article was not clear. Thank you very much for your observations have allowed to find these failures and errors.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

New version is ok.

Author Response

Thanks you very much!!!

Reviewer 3 Report

SECOND REVISION – 2^nd Reviewer’s notes

Authors have made some corrections. However, the authors' level of zeal is low, because one may verify that several of the suggestions made in the first revision were not met.

Please verify again some missing points in your correction:

A) Abstract

a)       Somehow, in the text, the objectives and the methodology are merged, making it unclear to the reader if the main purpose is (or isn’t) '(…) a new classification algorithm to distinguish between on-board Bluetooth device and the same device carried by a pedestrian when it is not possible to use the travel time for the classification due to the short distance between sensor ' (lines15-18), while in the Introduction section authors wrote (lines 69-70): ‘This article presents the study carried out in the city of Valencia to determine the use of motor vehicles in the historic centre.’

b)      Also, nothing is said in what concerns to the achieved results.

c)       A final sentence describing the significance of the results and the impact of this work on the general field of study, would be very much appreciated.

NOTHING WAS DONE OR MENTIONED by the authors, regarding the Abstract improvement! Authors have to attend the suggestion made on the first reviewer report.

          B)  KEYWORDS

As authors answered: ‘The keywords have been modified following part of their recommendations’.

Authors should take in account the first set of given suggestions, regarding the keywords! Moreover, it is not even an impossibility because of the number of keywords accepted by the journal.

On the Journal site in the ‘Instructions for Authors’ Section, one may read:

Keywords: Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.

Authors missed the suggestion made before: ‘Nevertheless, other keywords are missing (example: Urban Network; Historical Center of Valencia). Remember that keywords capture the essence of any paper and make any paper searchable.’

            C) Introduction

It seems reasonable that Points 2. Related work and 3. New Contribution become:

1.2. Related work and 3.1 New Contribution - Authors did not respond to the given suggestions!

In Point 3.1, a last sentence should be added stating how the achieved results will contribute to the overall field of study. Nothing was done or said!

5. Conclusions

 Previous reviewer's comment on Conclusions section:

'Is the discussion of the results converted in the authors’ Conclusions?' 

Authors changed it to ‘5. Results of the study.’ OK!*

In this section, authors speak about the results obtained in the study, BUT  there wasn’t any prior section about the "discussion of results". 

* I can accept that, even considering that authors could have named 'results discussion' somewhere (which have never done, even considering the previous suggestion), and not only remaining with the expression 'results of the study'.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review that will surely help to improve the understanding of the article.

I hope that the changes made conform to your recommendations.