Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper's main sections and a brief introducing each should be after the contributions in the introduction section 

The English should be revised for instance (one of many) line 114, 115 The main contributions of this paper are summaries as follows:

Also the different contribution bullets do not have the same tense/weight, Either they are all verbs with the same tense or nouns ... 

Also in the conclusions for instance" Different from the previous studies, which just focused on spatio-temporal feature 545 extraction to construct a multi-station passenger flow prediction model." needs revision and explanation

The English all over the article needs editing, these are just examples

 

Between a section and its subsection, there must be some wording introducing the upcoming subsections for instance section 2.1 Line 140, section 3 Line 346 and so on..

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment! 

Thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper introduces a two-stage model for multi-station passenger flow prediction, by combining state-of-the-art models such as CNNs, LSTMs and Transformers. The experiments are sound and achieve a good performance, while the added benefits of the classification phase are emphasized. My only comment is about the choice of the methods and the proposed architecture, were any other combinations explored?

 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx