Spatial Structure and Development Patterns of Urban Traffic Flow Network in Less Developed Areas: A Sustainable Development Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very interesting research material in terms of content, methodology, and empirics. It has many scientific and practical advantages. After minor corrections, in my opinion, it should be published.

The title is aptly formulated, and the research problem is clearly defined in the introduction. However, the goal should also be formulated in the introduction (regardless of the abstract). The structure of the article is well thought out.

Shortcomings:

The abstract needs improvement does not relate to the results of the manuscript; keywords should be lowercase.

There are errors in section numbering in the last paragraph of the introduction.

The first paragraph of Section 2.1. (lines 93-99) should be supported by the literature.

Figures 1, 2, 4, and 6 should be larger and include the source of the base map.

On lines 297, 302-303, and 340 there is an error message.

Figures 3 and 5 are unreadable (should be larger).

Author Response

Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments can be found in the attached PDF.

The paper is very good, however, needs minor improvement in the following areas: 

Abstract, discussion, conclusion, and little grammatical errors.

Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present manuscript, the authors analyzes the traffic flow network structure based on the concept of sustainable development, explore and analyze the interactions between cities and towns, and refine and explore the spatial development patterns. However, I will comment on some aspects to improve the quality of the article, and the suggested changes should be highlighted:

-The format is not the current one of the magazine.

-There is an error in the references from line 84.

-To improve the quality of the manuscript, the authors must increase the related works, so I suggest adding:

—Zambrano-Martinez, J. L., Calafate, C. T., Soler, D., Cano, J. C., & Manzoni, P. (2018). Modeling and characterization of traffic flows in urban environments. Sensors, 18(7), 2020.

—Chrpa, L.; Magazzeni, D.; McCabe, K.; McCluskey, T.L.; Vallati, M. Automated planning for urban traffic control: Strategic vehicle routing to respect air quality limitations. Intell. Artif. 2016, 10, 113–128.

-Authors should avoid using Phrasal Verbs.

-Figure 1 must include the geographic coordinates.

-Figure 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is too small

-Each continuation of a title of a Section, Subsection must include a brief introduction.

-Where did the authors obtain the data?

-The Figures do not have good resolution.

-Authors must improve the quality of English language writing.

-In which simulator has the study been verified?

-The data that have carried out the study is it with traffic congestion?

-Sections 5 and 6 must be the same Section. It is also too long to be a Conclusions Section and Future Works.

-Improve the conclusions, do not make them extensive and add future work.

-Authors must observe line 753.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the authors for performing the changes suggested by the reviewers. Before publication, a minimal spell check in the manuscript is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx