New Taipei City Smart Pavement Management Center and Road Maintenance Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of smart pavement management practices for New Taipei City, focusing on intelligent road inspection systems, maintenance processes, and budgetary optimization. It also provides insights into the application of technology towards improved road infrastructure management as well as enhanced maintenance.

1. Research Objective. It is unclear what the study question or hypothesis specifically aims to answer given the material supplied.

2. Methods. The article does not sufficiently explain why the Pavement Condition Index was chosen as the specific method rather than using other methodologies. Compare the PCI to other methods and identify potential deficiencies, including the potential for AI systems to misclassify damage.

3. No discussion on environmental impact. The research addresses cost and efficiency but does not explore sustainable methodologies. Integrate a concise paragraph describing how intelligent pavement management is touted to avoid excessive waste, conserve resources, and mitigate CO₂ emissions.

4. Data presentation needs to be rethought. The tables appear muddled and disordered in their presentation, and the figures do not have captions that explain their significance.

5. Weak Conclusion. The conclusion summarizes results and fails to stress the real-life implication and the future direction. You may want to summarize this critical part. Mention extending the system to other cities. It needs to be opined upon to investigate the long-term effects on cost savings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lack of proofreading is obvious in sentence structures and grammatical mistakes. Focus on clarifying language and conciseness while maintaining a professional academic tone.

Author Response

The paper has been revised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present article addresses the intelligent management of road maintenance in New Taipei City, focusing on the integration of a digital system for road inspection and management. Overall, the management system is presented in a clear and detailed manner. The text is well-structured and the presentation of the work is clear. However, in this form, the document is more similar to a technical report of the system used rather than a scientific article. There are several gaps to address, as suggested below:

1) Introduction: the introduction lacks a literature review on management systems used in other countries or similar experience, which would help position the research within the state-of-the-art.

2) It would be beneficial to include in the introduction (or in the main text) data or references to the decision-making process before the introduction of this system, to demonstrate the necessity of adopting it.

3) It would be useful to add a section in which the authors also address any challenges encountered during the implementation of the system or weaknesses that may require future modifications

Author Response

The paper has been revised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract: Clearly outline the key findings
2. Introduction: Clearly define the research gap.
   Give a brief overview of related worldwide research.
3. Methods: • Clearly indicate whether a quantitative assessment was carried out. If not, briefly explain your reasoning.
4. Results: • Include a table or chart that contrasts the costs, inspection time, and other outcomes before and after.
   Verify that figures and tables are high-resolution and have clear labels.
5. Discussion: • Clearly state how your findings could be used in other cities.
6. Limitations and Future Research: • Provide a brief summary of the study's limitations.
   Make specific recommendations for next research.

Author Response

Q1. Summary: Clearly summarize the main findings
A1: This has been explained in the article.
2. Introduction: Identifying research gaps. A brief overview of relevant research worldwide is given.
A2: The article explains the differences between the systems in different countries and those in this study.
3. Methods: • Clearly show whether a quantitative assessment was conducted. If not, please briefly explain your reasons.
A3: This question is similar to the fourth point.
4. Results:• Include a table or graph comparing before and after costs, inspection time, and other results. Verify that figures and tables are high resolution and clearly labeled.
A4: We have added explanations to the article, adding the method used by the road management system to determine maintenance methods, and added picture descriptions.
5. Discussion:• Clearly explain how your findings can be used in other cities.
A5: This question is similar to point 6.
6. Limitations and Future Research: • Briefly summarize the limitations of this study. Provide specific suggestions for further research.
A6: The maintenance analysis method has been supplemented in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments

Author Response

Thank you for your reply. I have answered the last question.