Analyzing the Relationship Between User Feedback and Traffic Accidents Through Crowdsourced Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study is relevant and has scientific and practical interest. The authors provided a fairly detailed review of the literature on this issue. However, the authors should formulate the research task more clearly. As follows from the text of the manuscript, the main difference is the use of data from their mobile application, and not from social networks. This is insufficient to justify the novelty of the study. The problem and scientific hypothesis for its solution should be clearly formulated. This implies insufficient clarity and precision of the conclusions. It is unclear from the conclusions what exactly the authors have achieved, what practical or scientific value it has. In this regard, I also propose adding a research plan, which should justify the proposed method.
Author Response
Comment 1: This study is relevant and has scientific and practical interest. The authors provided a fairly detailed review of the literature on this issue. However, the authors should formulate the research task more clearly. As follows from the text of the manuscript, the main difference is the use of data from their mobile application, and not from social networks. This is insufficient to justify the novelty of the study.
Response 1: To highlight the distinctions from previous studies, we revised the last paragraph in chapter 2.
Comment 2: The problem and scientific hypothesis for its solution should be clearly formulated. This implies insufficient clarity and precision of the conclusions.
Response 2: We revised the first sentence in chapter 3 to deliver what is the research hypothesis we want to access empirically.
Comment 3: It is unclear from the conclusions what exactly the authors have achieved, what practical or scientific value it has. In this regard, I also propose adding a research plan, which should justify the proposed method.
Response 3: According to the reviewer's comments, we have revised the conclusion section. In the revision, we clearly articulated the purpose of this study and added a research plan section that highlights the value of the research.
In addition, please see the attachment for the English Editing Certificate.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee's Report
Title: Leveraging Crowdsourcing Data to Analyze the Relationship between User Feedback and Traffic Accidents
Authors: JinGuk Kim, WooHoon Jeon and SeoungBum Kim
MS. Ref. No. sustainability-3271231
Dear Authors
This study underscores the value of crowdsourced data as a strategic resource in enhancing road safety, emphasizing its potential to inform more effective road management practices and contribute to the reduction of traffic-related fatalities and injuries.
The study conducted in this manuscript is novel and applicable to road safety related studies.
I have few remarks listed below regarding this study:
1.Abstract must be shorten and the authors must clearly explain what actual problem is being targeted and what strategies the authors are apply to solve this problem. The main focus of the Abstract has not been seen clear.
2.Introduction looks fine all the relevant studies have been discussed with proper citations but "Scholz" has been typeset in a different font. I suggest that this should be corrected.
3.Literature Review sections seems good. I suggest to improve the English Language not particularly for this section but for the whole manuscript.
4.The authors must type (1) and (2) instead of [Eq.1] and [Eq.2]. Commas are missing at the end of these equations and full stop is missing at the end of line 218.
5.The the blank space on page 6 must be removed.
6.Figures for Data set i and Data set for j are not clear. Indeed, no reader can see these two data sets.
7.Many references has not been typeset well.
Generally speaking the manuscript has the potential to be published in Sustainability but its presentation is not very good. Moreover, there are lot of grammatical and linguistic mistakes. I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication in the "Sustainability" in its current form. The manuscript needs a major revision and must be resubmitted after fixing all the issues as mentioned above.
sincerely yours,
Reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs mentioned in my report.
Author Response
Comment 1.Abstract must be shorten and the authors must clearly explain what actual problem is being targeted and what strategies the authors are apply to solve this problem. The main focus of the Abstract has not been seen clear.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We revised abstract accordingly
Comment 2.Introduction looks fine all the relevant studies have been discussed with proper citations but "Scholz" has been typeset in a different font. I suggest that this should be corrected.
Response 2: We revised typeset throughout the document
Comment 3.Literature Review sections seems good. I suggest to improve the English Language not particularly for this section but for the whole manuscript.
Response 3: I feel that extensive English editing is needed throughout the document. Therefore, we took this opportunity to obtain professional English editing and are submitting the supporting documentation. Please see the attachment.
Comment 4.The authors must type (1) and (2) instead of [Eq.1] and [Eq.2]. Commas are missing at the end of these equations and full stop is missing at the end of line 218.
Response 4: We revised accordingly
Comment 5.The the blank space on page 6 must be removed.
Response 5: We removed the space
Comment 6.Figures for Data set i and Data set for j are not clear. Indeed, no reader can see these two data sets.
Response 6: We revised those figures for better readability and visibility
Comment 7.Many references has not been typeset well.
Response 7: We double checked the references’ typeset
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
In the manuscript, the relationship between user feedback and traffic accidents was examined. Specifically, the spatial autocorrelation analysis and hotspot analysis were employed to assess whether areas frequently reported by users align with regions of high traffic accident occurrences, based on crowdsourced data and fatal accident data from Korea between 2014 and 2022. However, there are some defects in the manuscript, which are listed below.
1. The literature review is inadequate. On one hand, several representative studies were not cited. On the other hand, the current version merely describes some of the previous research without providing a comprehensive summary and analysis, particularly lacking an overview of the shortcomings of the previous studies and the identification of gaps in the relevant research fields.
2. The format of parts of the figures, tables, equations, and subtitles is unacceptable.
3. This study investigates the correlation between user feedback and traffic accidents. The study is based on the analysis of empirical data; therefore, it is crucial to clearly report the conclusions drawn from the analysis. On the other hand, a reasonable and well-supported analysis of the underlying causes of objective phenomena (preferably supported by citations) is also essential.
Sincerely,
The reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Comment 1. The literature review is inadequate. On one hand, several representative studies were not cited. On the other hand, the current version merely describes some of the previous research without providing a comprehensive summary and analysis, particularly lacking an overview of the shortcomings of the previous studies and the identification of gaps in the relevant research fields.
Response 1: First of all, we found and added several representative studies in chapter 2. Secondly, We added a paragraph that provide overall summary of previous studies and clearly deliver the gap between the literature and this work in the last paragraph in chapter 2.
Comment 2. The format of parts of the figures, tables, equations, and subtitles is unacceptable.
Response 2: We reviewed the template provided by MDPI and revised our manuscript throughout.
Comment 3. This study investigates the correlation between user feedback and traffic accidents. The study is based on the analysis of empirical data; therefore, it is crucial to clearly report the conclusions drawn from the analysis. On the other hand, a reasonable and well-supported analysis of the underlying causes of objective phenomena (preferably supported by citations) is also essential.
Response 3: As requested, we cited a study that supports the findings derived from this study in the conclusion.
In addition, please see the attachment for the English Editing Certificate.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thank you for revising the manuscript according to my suggestions.
I can recommend the manuscript for publication "Sustainability".
sincerely,
Reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is acceptable.
Author Response
I am thankful for your thorough review and the thoughtful suggestions you provided.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
Thank you for inviting me to review the revised manuscript. Overall, the manuscript has been improved. However, part of the improvements is unqualified. In other word, while the manuscript has been modified, parts of the defects still exist. Therefore, my recommendation is “Minor Revision”, and the detailed comments are listed below.
1. The literature review is inadequate. Currently, a key deficiency in this section is the author's insufficient identification of the shortcomings and gaps in existing research. Specifically, there is a lack of accurate summarization of the limitations of the previous studies, particularly those relevant to the present research.
2. Certain figures and tables do not meet the general formatting standards expected in academic papers. For instance, Figures 4 and 5 exhibit low clarity, making them difficult to read.
3. While research conclusions were supplemented, there is few improvements regarding the other deficiencies I previously addressed. For more specific feedback, please refer to my earlier review report.
Sincerely,
Dr. Junyan Han
Author Response
First off, I am thankful for your thorough review and the thoughtful suggestions you provided.
Comment 1: The literature review is inadequate. Currently, a key deficiency in this section is the author's insufficient identification of the shortcomings and gaps in existing research.Specifically, there is a lack of accurate summarization of the limitations of the previous studies, particularly those relevant to the present research.
Response 1: we tried to clearly deliver gaps between existing research and this study. Please see the third paragraph from the end of chapter 2.
Comment 2: Certain figures and tables do not meet the general formatting standards expected in academic papers. For instance, Figures 4 and 5 exhibit low clarity, making them difficult to read.
Response 2: we revised Figure 4 and 5 so that readers are able to see the features that we want to visualize. Also we revised Tables based on the MDPI guideline.
Comment 3: While research conclusions were supplemented, there is few improvements regarding the other deficiencies I previously addressed. For more specific feedback, please refer to my earlier review report.
Response 3: we described the key findings from this study with more details in chapter 6. In addition we added a paragraph to explain the underlying causes of the correlation between user feedback and traffic accidents, and we cited relevant studies that support our argument.
