A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a systematic literature review on Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management. The paper is generally written in a correct manner. A correct methodology was adopted for the literature review study. However, I have a technical remark. There is one author of the paper who identifies the execution of the work by multiple authors (plural eg. we created etc.). All authors should be indicated in the paper. If there is only one author then please rewrite the paper in non-personal style. At the end of the paper, there are paragraphs in which the author should specify the given parameters in accordance with the requirements of the journal, e.g. Author Contributions, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, etc.
Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management”. I appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript. I would like to show our gratitude for the thorough comments of the review. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscript through the track changes tool.
Point 1: There is one author of the paper who identifies the execution of the work by multiple authors (plural eg. we created etc.). All authors should be indicated in the paper. If there is only one author then please rewrite the paper in non-personal style.
Response 1:
Thank you for your comment. This issue has been addressed in the revised version.
Point 2: At the end of the paper, there are paragraphs in which the author should specify the given parameters in accordance with the requirements of the journal, e.g. Author Contributions, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, etc.
Response 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. All sections have been written according to the requirements of the journal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to conduct a Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management.However,I have the following questions that lead to my decision.
(1) The motivation is not clearly presented although authors reviewed some related works. The contribution should be clearly explained.
(2)The literature review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles still needs to be improved. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9464125.
(3) The authors also should compare the performance and complexity of different methods.
(4) All figures must be reproduced with a high resolution (300 dpi as minimum)
(5)There are some errors in the paper.The language must be well modified.
Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management”. I appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript. I would like to show our gratitude for the thorough comments of the review. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscript through the track changes tool.
Point 1: The motivation is not clearly presented although authors reviewed some related works. The contribution should be clearly explained.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback; the primary goal of this literature review was to describe the most recent publications in the field of connected and autonomous vehicles to understand current traffic management techniques and identify difficulties and limitations. However, a section was added in the contribution section to state more contributions to this study. Additionally, in the conclusion section, the study discussed some of the research gap and the future direction of the field of CAVs for traffic management.
Point 2: The literature review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles still needs to be improved. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9464125.
Response 2: The author appreciates the reviewer’s comments and considers that the literature review has been improved by incorporating data from such a useful paper. Reference to the revised manuscript Line No. 711.
Point 3: The authors also should compare the performance and complexity of different methods.
Response 3: The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment. However, some sort of comparison is done under the discussion section, but a detailed comparison falls out of our paper’s scope.
Point 4: All figures must be reproduced with a high resolution (300 dpi as minimum).
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback; all figures are updated accordingly.
Point 5: There are some errors in the paper. The language must be well modified.
Response 5: The manuscript has been reviewed again thoroughly, and found errors have been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper studies an interesting topic on traffic management strategies that use autonomous vehicles and connected vehicles to improve road safety. However, I think this paper can be improved in the following aspects:
1. Table 4 is especially useful in this paper. It would be useful to structure the papers by year of publication sorted from newest to oldest.
2. Check the text for inconsistencies. Are the vehicles linked or connected? Make it unanimous throughout the text whilst keeping in mind that most of the literature uses the term connected vehicles.
3. My main concern is that the authors missed the "mixed traffic" keyword search. The authors are advised to look into some of missed papers listed below:
1) https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/6/2574
2) https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/932
3) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9480215
4) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9837279
Refer to paper 1) (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/6/2574) to see most of the missed papers directly regarding the topic of your paper.
Other smaller issues to address are as follows:
1. What are "linked cars" mentioned in line 88? Do you mean connected vehicles?
2. The text should be Electronic Database in Figure 1.
3. Define abbreviations in line 206 after their first use. Check all abbreviations and define them the first time you use them.
Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management”. I appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript. I would like to show our gratitude for the thorough comments of the review. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscript through the track changes tool.
Point 1: Table 4 is especially useful in this paper. It would be useful to structure the papers by year of publication sorted from newest to oldest.
Response 1: The table has been modified as far as possible, but due to a large number of research papers, i.e., 100+, it is difficult to sort out year-wise. Furthermore, the paper has been divided into different goals so as to progress through goals; Mendeley adds in automatically arranged papers. However, the author appreciates the reviewer’s remarks.
Point 2: Check the text for inconsistencies. Are the vehicles linked or connected? Make it unanimous throughout the text whilst keeping in mind that most of the literature uses the term connected vehicles.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. This issue has been addressed in the revised version.
Point 3: My main concern is that the authors missed the "mixed traffic" keyword search. The authors are advised to look into some of missed papers listed below:
- https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/6/2574
- https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/932
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9480215
- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9837279
Refer to paper 1) (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/6/2574) to see most of the missed papers directly regarding the topic of your paper.
Response 3: The authors appreciate the reviewer remarks, and these provided papers are useful in mixed traffic and Artificial intelligence context and has been incorporated in our review paper and enhanced it further..
Point 4: What are "linked cars" mentioned in line 88? Do you mean connected vehicles?
Response 4: The mistake has been corrected throughout the revised manuscript.
Point 5: The text should be Electronic Database in Figure 1
Response 5: Figure 1 has been revised accordingly.
Point 6: Define abbreviations in line 206 after their first use. Check all abbreviations and define them the first time you use them.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out such a mistake, and it has been corrected by defining abbreviations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please review the citations in order to verify if each reference is cited at least once in the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management”. I appreciate the time and effort you and other reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript. I would like to show our gratitude for the thorough comments of the review. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscript through the track changes tool.
Point 1: Please review the citations in order to verify if each reference is cited at least once in the paper.
Response 1:
The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment and the manuscript has been reviewed thoroughly to check all citations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Summary: This study looked at current research on how Autonomous and Connected Vehicles can be used to improve road safety and make travel safer. Also, it's interesting to sum up these strategies and look at the results and goals they helped reach. Through this study, a lot was learned about the different ways traffic is managed, the problems that still need to be solved, the problems that come with them, and where things are going in the future. Suggestions and Comments: - The paper is well-written and well-structured and deals with an interesting and innovative topic. - The author must pay close attention to grammar and typographical errors. + Example 1: Figure 1: Electronic Databas + Example 2: Title of figure one: some words are capitalized while others are not. (Please pay attention to this everywhere) + Example 3: Line 107: "Section 2 =====> Section 2 - Line 32: What does the abbreviation SAE correspond to? - Please avoid using abbreviations without explanation. - The author may include a list of used abbreviations at the end of the paper. - The author may also add a figure that summarizes the structure of the paper. - Section 1.1 (Prior Research) may be summarized in a tabular form that compares this article with previous related and similar articles. - The author needs to consider security aspects related to communications between vehicles. - In the same direction, the author is invited to add a short section about the use of blockchain technology for securing communications for connected vehicles - For this purpose, the author may include the following reference (And others ) in his study): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9706476 - The limitations of existing works need to be summarized in a clear way in one of the last sections of the paper. - In the same manner, future work directions need to be clearly stated. - The author may also include a classification of the considered research works according to the geographical distribution of authors and institutions. - Another critical aspect to consider is the financial cost and impact of the technology under consideration. - Similarly, environmental impact needs to be studied as well.Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles in Traffic Management”. I appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on my manuscript. I would like to show our gratitude for the thorough comments of the review. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscript through the track changes tool.
Point 1: The author must pay close attention to grammar and typographical errors. + Example 1: Figure 1: Electronic Databas + Example 2: Title of figure one: some words are capitalized while others are not. (Please pay attention to this everywhere) + Example 3: Line 107: "Section 2 =====> Section 2.
Response 1: Thank you for reviewing and pointing out mistakes. All mistakes have been corrected. Also, the paper has been reviewed for English mistakes.
Point 2: What does the abbreviation SAE correspond to?
Response 2: SAE’s abbreviation “Society of Automotive Engineers” has now been written in the manuscript.
Point 3: Please avoid using abbreviations without explanation.
Response 3: I appreciate the reviewer’s remarks, and the manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed accordingly.
Point 4: The author may include a list of used abbreviations at the end of the paper.
Response 4: The revised manuscript has added a list of abbreviations at the end of the paper.
Point 5: The author may also add a figure that summarizes the structure of the paper.
Response 5: I appreciate the reviewer’s comments; a figure was added in the revised version (Figure 1)
Point 6: Section 1.1 (Prior Research) may be summarized in a tabular form that compares this article with previous related and similar articles.
Response 6: The author appreciates the reviewer’s comments. The paper already has many tables and figures, and the paper is very long. This can be a good idea for our future review paper.
Point 7: The author needs to consider security aspects related to communications between vehicles. In the same direction, the author is invited to add a short section about the use of blockchain technology for securing communications for connected vehicles. For this purpose, the author may include the following reference (And others ) in his study): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9706476
Response 7: The proposed study has been added to the revised manuscript, and the author appreciates the reviewer’s contribution in this regard.
Point 8: The limitations of existing works need to be summarized in a clear way in one of the last sections of the paper. In the same manner, future work directions need to be clearly stated.
Response 8: The manuscript is revised as mentioned. The discussion and conclusion sections were revised accordingly to address all points mentioned.
Point 9: The author may also include a classification of the considered research works according to the geographical distribution of authors and institutions.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will consider this point in our future experiments.
Point 10: Another critical aspect to consider is the financial cost and impact of the technology under consideration. Similarly, environmental impact needs to be studied as well.
Response 10: The author appreciates the reviewer’s remarks. However, the said remarks fall out of our research scope. Nevertheless, this can be a good addition to future research.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all my concerns and comments.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors considered all my comments and suggestions. I have no more remarks to give. Good luck.
