Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The data in the paper is sufficient and the data analysis is reasonable. Here are some suggestions:

1. The author should state the innovation of the paper in the introduction.
2. Is the author in section 4.2 mixing the data source presentation with the data processing process? This is confusing. And the author needs to focus on the structure of the source data.
3. Thesis images have blurred caption fonts.
4. The font in Figure 1 is not uniform.
5. The paper describes that a relationship exists between the number of TIVs, registered vehicles, and the number of traffic accidents. However, it does not specify how these three elements affect each other.
6. The analysis method of this paper is a very conventional statistical method. It is suggested to learn from the hot methods in this field in recent years, so as to make the relevant conclusions more reliable and of academic value. 

Author Response

Dear

thank you for your suggestion. 

We took all aspects that you give us. The statistics methods used in this work are very good and impact of each three element are presented in the table 6 and also in the conclusions. We use the standard multiple regression, and part of this analysis is presented with the Pearson correlation test. We find the important results and in the future investigations we will use some hot methods as you say. 

Once again thank you. 

Djordje Vranjes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is interesting and always revives as a timely issue, since it is related to human beings and road incidents. The paper has enough margin for improvement. I have some comments for the authors as following:

(1) Abstract: It is lengthy, please revise and make it more coincise.

(2) The issue of road safety: To the reviewer’s opinion, this issue is a social and imperative demand that depends on two main pillar factors: (a) driving behavior and vehicle features and (b) roadway infrastructure condition (road geometry and most importantly pavement surface condition – skid resistance and polishing material behavior). The authors emphasized on the first scale. However, combined with my 5th comment, a broader discussion needs to be done, by placing the road safety on a wider range related to both vehicles, road infrastructures and tire-road interaction (e.g. suggested literatures to be included in the paper from all road safety disciplines: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2021.09.004 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101247 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.07.063 ). I do believe the authors need to make this important clarification at the beginning of the introduction and continue thereafter, focusing on their part on TIV. Recall again my 5th comment.

(3) Study objective: The authors need to do better on proving how their study is linked to “sustainability”. Please place your study in a general framework compared to the existing knowledge and highlight the significant contribution of your effort. Elaborate further in conjunction with the 9^th bullet of section 4.2.

(4) Spelling: Please check the text. Examples, in pg. 11/14 “nontypical” is probably “non typical”. Please revise accordingly. 

(5) References: They are relatively old. The reviewer would like to see more recent scientific literature to be included in the paper.

Author Response

Dear

thank you for all your suggestion. 

We implemented all things that you give us. Firs we put that road safety is more wide issue. Than we implemented the works according to your suggestions. We also put them in the literature. We also change mistake at page 11. 

Thank you once again. 

 

Đorđe Vranješ

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The analysis method of this paper is a very conventional statistical method. It is suggested to learn from the hot methods in this field in recent years, so as to make the relevant conclusions more reliable and of academic value.

Author Response

Dear

we take all your suggestions for improving the work. Thank you very much.

From the start, we are defined the concept of this work. In that kind the system for taking the data and method of analysis in the SPSS26 are focused for the used technics. We tried to find some as you say ''hot'' method, but we didn't find way how to do it. Could you please tell us which method did you think and how to use actual data in this work for analysis in the SPSS26. 

We use technics and method which are approved in SPSS manual and their results are credible. Once again thank you for all efforts.  

Best regards

Djordje Vranješ

 

   

Reviewer 2 Report

The study was improved. Some comments for further considerations:

(1) The abstract is now more concise and communicative. Please correct to “traffic” in the keywords. And correct the phrase “the results have shown negative correlation value” (i am seeing something in red colour in the authors pdf file - please check and correct it).

(2) At the end of the first paragraph in the introduction, you may better change as “…as well as the state of road safety and the materials used in the surface layer of pavement infrastructures [1]”.

(3) Again, a little bit more effort is needed to enhance the study’s objective. At the last sentence of the introduction, you may change as “Also, the goal is to improve sustainability and reliability within vehicle control through the investigation of whether the number of…”.  Elaborate accordingly (if applicable) on the conclusions.

(4) Double check the style/format of tables to avoid delays in the production phase.

(5) Figures/diagrams: Please be consistent with the term used (i.e. simply use on figures).

Author Response

Dear 

we change every task that you mentioned. Once again thank you very much for all suggestions and the time that you spend for this work. 

Best regards, 

Djordje Vranješ

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Through the comparison between the former and the latter versions of the paper, my previous review comments were not well modified. 

1. The paper describes that a relationship exists between the number of TIVs, registered vehicles, and the number of traffic accidents. However, it does not specify how these three elements affect each other. 

2. The analysis method of this paper is a very conventional statistical method. It is suggested to learn from the hot methods in this field in recent years, so as to make the relevant conclusions more reliable and of academic value. 

Author Response

Dear 

once again thank you for your suggestions. 

In the conculsion on the new verison of manuscript we appointed that relationship between the number of TIV, registered vehicles and the number of traffic accidents are not strongly dependent between themselves. This is taked from the table 6 in our work. We used the Peason coleration method for this kind of analysis. 

Also, reqarding the ''hot methods'' we analyse the work and used methodologies from the same works like our.  In the point 2 of work we sistematize some of the used methodologies in works. The conclusion is that we use almost the same methodologies as they have been used. 

Plase look the changes that we made in work according your suggestion. 

Thank you once again for all activities. 

Best regards

Djordje Vranješ, cooresponding author

 

 

 

   

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx