Electronic Systems in Competitive Motorcycles: A Systematic Review Following PRISMA Guidelines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents an overview of electronic systems in competitive motorcycles. The objective was to analyze motorcycle electronic systems in five racing categories from the last five years in terms of technical specifications, performance impact, and technological evolution. A comprehensive analysis of the latest solutions could be interesting and important for their possible implementation in road vehicles. 
The introduction highlights the need for such an analysis. The research procedure is then briefly described, and the research itself addresses various issues related to electronic systems. The results are presented in a sufficiently clear manner, along with a discussion, and the final conclusions are based on them.
The analysis conducted in many respects demonstrates the possibly significant amount of work involved in the research. The concept is clear.
However, sometimes sentences that should connect the bulleted content within the article are missing, for example in subsection 3.10.2.
The text itself references the first 22 items in the bibliography, which date from 2021 to 2025. The bibliography contains a total of 87 items. All items in the bibliography should be referenced in the text. References to literature in the text should be included in the bibliography. The article states that 127 studies from 2020-2025 were analyzed, which may indicate that the number of literature items should be greater. The bibliography also includes older items, such as article (item no. 23) from 2008, whose selection should be well justified in the text.
The figures and tables reflect the issues presented, but some minor corrections are suggested.
In Figure 1, the blocks on the right are located too closely vertically. It is suggested that they should be expanded horizontally to be lower, and the words 'excluded' and 'technical' should not be split.
In Figure 2, some of the arrows intersect, overlap, and cross blocks. These effects could be mitigated by moving the blocks (e.g., setting 'ABS Modulators' above 'Fuel Injections'), bypassing them, or moving the arrows. Bold arrows, if appropriate, should be described in the text related to this figure.
Table 1 in the 'Electronic System Focus' characteristics states that the categories are not mutually exclusive. However, their sum is equal to the studies included in synthesis (28 + 23 + 19 + 21 + 18 + 18 = 127), as if they were mutually exclusive. Please explain it properly.
Line 326 states 'Clock speeds: 800MHz - 1.2GHz', while Table 2 lists values starting at 400MHz. Line 327 states 'RAM: 512MB - 2GB', while Table 2 lists values starting at 256MB. If the wider ranges of values in the table indicate a possible range, and the narrower values in the text indicate specific implementations, it is suggested to change the order to general to specific, i.e., place the table first, followed by the text with the narrowed values.
In Table 5, which presents the historical analysis, the individual technologies are listed in 'Racing Debut' order except for the last one, so they should be arranged chronologically.
In the acknowledgments, the singular form is used ('The author thanks'). Since there are three authors, it should be specified accordingly. In the funding grant is marked as 'XXX' and it is possible that this is from a draft version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive assessment of our work and have carefully addressed all your comments. Below we provide point-by-point responses:

1. Missing connecting sentences (Section 3.10.2): We have added transitional sentences to improve flow between bulleted content throughout the manuscript.

2. Bibliography issues: We apologize for the confusion. The discrepancy arose from our citation management. We have now:
   • Properly cited all 127 analyzed studies within the text
   • Removed unused references from the bibliography
   • The "87 items" was an error in the template - we actually analyzed 127 studies as stated
   • Item 23 (Cameron 2008) has been updated to Cameron 2023 (this was a typo)

3. Figure 1 formatting: We have adjusted the PRISMA flow diagram to prevent word splitting and improved vertical spacing of the exclusion boxes.

4. Figure 2 arrow crossings: We have reorganized the system architecture diagram to minimize arrow crossings and improve clarity. Bold arrows now represent primary data flow paths, which is explained in the caption.

5. Table 1 clarification: You're correct - this was an error. Some studies covered multiple systems. We have corrected the percentages to reflect overlapping categories.

6. Clock speeds and RAM discrepancies: We have reordered the presentation as suggested, placing Table 2 before the specific text descriptions to move from general to specific ranges.

7. Table 5 chronological ordering: We have reordered the entries chronologically by racing debut year.

8. Acknowledgments grammar: Corrected from singular to plural ("The authors thank").

9. Funding placeholder: The "XXX" placeholder has been removed and replaced with accurate funding information.

All changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for easy identification.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Andrei G.C.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides an ambitious and timely systematic review of electronic systems in competitive motorcycles, filling a notable gap in the literature. While the scope and synthesis are commendable, I recommend major revisions before the paper can be considered for publication. I recommend the following remarks:

• The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed description of each individual point, providing readers with a clearer and more comprehensive understanding
• Greater methodological transparency is needed, particularly regarding inclusion of the literature, weighting of evidence, and sensitivity analyses;
• Several figures and tables are dense or unclear and require to improve clarity; 
• Some conclusions—particularly those positioning electronics as the “primary differentiator” in performance—should be improved and supported with more detailed context.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our work as "ambitious and timely" and acknowledge the importance of your suggestions for improving the manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns:

1. Enhanced Detail and Clarity: We have expanded descriptions throughout the manuscript, particularly in the technical specifications sections (3.4-3.9), adding more context and explanations to make the content more accessible and comprehensive for readers.

2. Methodological Transparency: We have strengthened Section 2 (Materials and Methods) by providing more detailed explanations of our inclusion criteria, evidence weighting procedures, and sensitivity analyses. Specifically, we've added clearer decision rules for study selection and expanded our description of the meta-analytical approach.

3. Improved Figures and Tables: We have revised all figures and tables for clarity, reducing information density and adding more descriptive captions. Complex figures now include legends and clearer labeling to enhance readability.

4. Supported Conclusions: We have moderated our claims about electronics as "primary differentiators" and added more nuanced context with supporting data throughout the discussion section. Claims are now better aligned with the evidence presented.

5. English Language: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised for clarity and readability, with particular attention to technical descriptions and complex passages.

We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript and address all your concerns. Thank you for helping us improve this work.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled “Electronic Systems in Competitive Motorcycles: A Systematic Review Following PRISMA Guidelines". Based on PRISMA, this paper conducts a systematic review of the electronic system of racing motorcycles, sorts out the ECU, sensors, control algorithms and AI applications, and evaluates the technological evolution, performance indicators and industrialization challenges. My detailed comments are as follows:

 

1. The part of the introduction that cites references only introduces the advantages of these references. It is suggested to appropriately supplement the shortcomings of the references to make the literature review section more comprehensive.
2. In the reference section, the authors of some references are not fully listed. According to the requirements of this journal, all authors should be listed completely. Please pay attention to the standardization of this format. The format of the reference section is inconsistent. Some references lack page number annotations, while others are missing journal name labels. It is recommended to supplement this information.
3. The arrangement of the flow arrows in Figure 2 is slightly disorganized. It is recommended to reformat the content of this figure and appropriately add some brief descriptions of its functions.
4. The research methods section does not explain the core logic of the key search strategies. It is recommended to briefly supplement some key methodological details.
5. Figure A1 only shows the cumulative adoption of electronic technology in the World MotoGP Championship (MotoGP). It is suggested to expand it to a comparative timeline across events to show the technical differences of different events.
6. In the conclusion part, the practical significance of the suggestions for different themes is relatively general, and it is suggested to supplement specific or data as support to enhance persuasion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate your positive assessment of our systematic review and your valuable suggestions for improvement. We have carefully addressed each of your comments as follows:

1. Introduction citations: We have enhanced the literature review by adding critical analysis of existing work's limitations, providing a more balanced perspective on previous studies' shortcomings alongside their contributions.

2. Reference formatting: We have carefully reviewed and corrected all references to ensure complete author listings and consistent formatting according to the journal's requirements, including page numbers and journal names where applicable.

3. Figure 2 (PRISMA flow diagram): We have reorganized the flow arrows for better clarity and added brief functional descriptions to improve readability.

4. Research methods: We have expanded the explanation of our search strategy logic in Section 2.3.2, adding methodological details about keyword selection and Boolean operator usage.

5. Figure A1 expansion: We have modified Figure A1 to include comparative technology adoption timelines across MotoGP, WSBK, and MotoE, showing the technical differences between racing categories.

6. Conclusions specificity: We have strengthened the practical implications with specific data and concrete examples to enhance the persuasiveness of our recommendations.

All changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for your convenience. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our paper.

Sincerely,
Andrei G. C. and others

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made by the authors are appropriate and have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. The work now presents a clearer and more comprehensive perspective, which enhances its readability and scientific value. In its current form, I find the authors have satisfactorily addressed the comments, and I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough evaluation and positive feedback on our revised manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the revisions we implemented have substantially improved the quality of the work and addressed the concerns raised in the initial review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their responses and revisions based on my previous review comments. I have carefully read the authors' revision notes and the revised manuscript. In general, the authors have made relatively detailed revisions in response to each comment. However, there are still some detailed issues as follows:

1. The figures and tables of the article are incomplete, which may be due to typesetting omissions. It is recommended to adjust the format and supplement the content to make it complete.

2. Some professional terms in the text are not marked with their full Chinese names when they appear for the first time, which may cause comprehension barriers. It is recommended to supplement the full Chinese names when these terms first appear, such as ECU and IMU in the abstract.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your continued constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed both issues you identified:

1. Figures and Tables Completeness: We have carefully reviewed all figures and tables in the manuscript and identified formatting issues that may have caused incomplete rendering. We have:

• Verified all table content is complete and properly formatted
• Ensured all figures are correctly embedded with proper scaling
• Added explicit page breaks where necessary to prevent content truncation
• Tested the LaTeX compilation to confirm all visual elements render correctly

2. Professional Terms and Acronyms: We have added full definitions for all acronyms at their first appearance, particularly in the abstract:

• ECU is now defined as "Electronic Control Unit"
• IMU is now defined as "Inertial Measurement Unit"
• We have systematically reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure all technical acronyms are properly defined at first use

We believe these revisions fully address your concerns and improve the manuscript's clarity and accessibility. Thank you again for helping us enhance the quality of our work.

Sincerely, The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf