A Systematic Review of Traffic Incident Detection Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic presented in the paper is important, and still on time. In the reviewed paper, the Authors presented existing automatic incident detection systems or algorithms by assessing their performance, strengths, limitations, and their corresponding data collection and data processing techniques. The literature is sought through an extensive review of the existing refereed publications using Google Scholar search engine, and the scopus database. The methodology adopted for this research is a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In my opinion, the paper can be published, after taking into account the following remarks:

- the "Figure 1 incident's impact [17]" is very bad quality. Could the Authors improve it?

- moreover, figure 1 is not prepared by the Authors but is taken from reference [17]. According to the Sustainability journal paper requirements, in each such case, when the Authors of the paper take the materials/figures/tables from another source, then they have to submit in the publisher's office written permission from the source author(s) for the further use of this materials,

- the above remark is dedicated to all similar cases in the whole paper text, i.e. figure 2, figure 3, figure 4, etc.,

- the purpose of this paper is to evaluate existing AID systems and their corresponding data collection and data processing algorithms. So, the Authors presented the literature review in order to identify and investigate their strengths and limitations. Hence, recommendations for improving and developing effective AID systems are identified. It is very good, but there is a lack of a description of the structure and infrastructure of transport systems as basic elements connected with the level of road safety. Properly designed road solutions as well as elements supporting and improving road traffic are the basis for further activities in the field of road safety improvement. Also, it is AID systems that also help to maintain the proper level of road safety. Authors should mention such solutions and refer to the latest literature in this regard, e.g. "P&R parking and bike-sharing system as solutions supporting transport accessibility of the city", doi 10.21307 / TP-2020-066; "Dangerous Driving Behavior Recognition Based on Hand Trajectory", doi.org/10.3390/su141912355; "The analysis of the factors influencing the severity of bicyclist injury in bicyclist-vehicle crashes", doi 10.3390 / su14010215. One short paragraph in the Introduction section will be enough,

- the Authors are asked to check the sections and subsections numbering because as far now, we can find mistakes, e.g. in section 3 called "3. Literature review", we can find a subsection with the number 2.1. called "2.1 Comparative (Pattern Recognition) Algorithms:". Please check it in the whole paper text,

- in the section called "2. Research Methodology" there is a lack of information about the number of papers used for the review. It should be added,

-  is like follows "4. Conclusion and Recommendations" should be like follows "4. Conclusions and Recommendations",

- the Conclusions section is written in a general way and should be extended by adding some detailed conclusions from presented in the paper review.

Author Response

Please find the attached response file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please read the attachment. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attached response file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments are listed below 

1. The paper lack a details investigation.

2. The authors did not mention the findings and learning from the review.

3. The paper doesn't have motivation. The authors need to add a motivation.

4. Methodology section seems tired and not enough.

5. What are the challenges to the selected topics?

6. Detailed discussion and Future Research directions are missing.

7. The presentation of the survey is really poor.

8. The references are not enough.

9. I think the paper doesn't have any technical contributions upon which it can be published in a reputed journal.

Author Response

Please find the attached response file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors improved paper in this revised version. However, the research direction section should be added as separate section.

Author Response

Please find the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx