The Novel Application of Deep Reinforcement to Solve the Rebalancing Problem of Bicycle Sharing Systems with Spatiotemporal Features

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper designed and developed a bike re-balancing incentive system (BRIS). The main idea is to move bicycles to locations where they are needed. This paper mainly relies on reinforcement learning and simulation methods. The overall quality of this paper is good. Please see my comments as below.

1. In the abstract, the author mentioned that “BRIS mainly includes two objectives…”. What is the 2^nd one? I didn’t see it.

2. the author mentioned the “red envelope” at several locations. It is really hard for me to locate the so-called red envelope. Please update this so that readers can read this easier.

3. please to re-organize the whole paper. The existing version discussed those bike gym and spatial algorithms. However, I don’t see how they are connected.

4. Can the author describe how the real-world data were used? And how the simulation methods were used together?

good

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading and correcting my paper. I also apologize for any inconvenience for your reading. Below, I will do my best to revise the paper and provide explanations in 《editor 1.dox》.

I got to know MDPI first, and some processes are not very familiar. Please be more tolerant.

Thanks for your reading!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently had the opportunity to review your manuscript, and I appreciate the work and effort that has been invested into it.

At first, I want to acknowledge the potential of your research and the impact it could have within its respective field. However, during the review process, I encountered a number of challenges that hindered my full comprehension and evaluation of your work. I believe addressing these concerns will significantly improve the clarity and overall quality of your manuscript.

The structure and layout of the manuscript need refinement to improve the readability and flow of the information presented. I advise revisiting the guidelines provided by the journal regarding manuscript structure, as well as consulting relevant literature to better understand the typical layout of papers in your field.

The first chapter, for example, lacks sufficient background information (including pertinent literature) to evaluate the presented findings. Also, some terminology is not defined or could use more clarification (e.g. red envelope, Bike Gym) or is even misused (e.g. bicycle instead of public bicycle or bike sharing system). Further, the scope is not presented properly as the chapter seems to jump between certain ideas without proper transitions, which makes it hard to follow. While the work's broader aim is clear, to balance user demands on certain stations using an incentive system and hence solve the bike sharing rebalancing problem, it would be beneficial to include more specifics about what this research hopes to add to that field. In addition, the methodology could be presented in a clearer way. Finally, the principal results as well as the outline of the paper's structure are missing.

The second chapter also lacks structure, as it is not clearly visible how the provided literature links with the research questions of this article. Also, the chapter is jumping between different research topics without referring to the scope of the paper or transitions between different topics. Further, the remainder of the paper is misplaced and also not sufficient in detail.

The third chapter contains substantial information, including a number of assumptions and definitions that are fundamental to your research. However, these elements are currently not described adequately, which makes it challenging to follow your line of reasoning and fully understand the implications of your work. For instance, certain variables have been introduced without clear definitions, and the formulas used lack sufficient explanation. Furthermore, I was very surprised that at times car usage patterns (Algorithm 1, line 8), cars and car parking spots (line 257) were mentioned, although the article is actually about bicycles.

This lack of detail obstructs the reader's comprehension of your work and limits the potential to understand and appreciate the remaining content of the article. As such, it was difficult for me to proceed further with my review.

Please consider these suggestions as constructive criticism, aimed at helping your research reach a wide audience and have a great impact.

Kind regards

 

There are some serious issues with the language and grammar that make understanding the content difficult, sometimes even incomprehensible. This includes incorrect verb tenses, misuse of plurals, missing spaces or punctuation, and repeated words. Further, some terminologies are misused (e.g. bicycle instead of bike sharing, re-balancing bicycle problem instead of bike sharing rebalancing problem, etc.).

I strongly suggest having the manuscript proofread by a native English speaker, or a professional editing service, to ensure the text is clear, concise, and grammatically correct.

Author Response

Dear editor,

        My response is  in file of edior2.

Thanks for your reading.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

-

The initial version of the paper had considerable issues with language, grammar, structure, and clarity, leading to its rejection. However, it seems that the latest version still contains many basic errors that considerably affect its readability and professionalism.

Author Response

Dear editor, 

       Thank you very much for reading and correcting my paper. I also apologize for any inconvenience for your reading. At present, my manuscript has been revised. The modified part is highlighted.

Thanks!