A Roadside and Cloud-Based Vehicular Communications Framework for the Provision of C-ITS Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A good article to provide the investigation into national C-ITS projects and even some international C-ITS projects which are relative each other or can be integrated together to have a wide scope application over several countries. All systematical summary and extracted core outlines concerning the relative technology for C-ITS are very much expected by industries. The framework discussed in the article for the communication among all infrastructure systems, vehicles and cloud facilities is the core and demanded by researchers and engineering companies. However, the following points are not suitable for the publication in the journal so far:

1) The article seems like the report for the project to describe how to implement practical works instead of the summary extracted by research from all relative projects. It can be used to report to the office of project management, but it is still not good enough to be an article appearing in the journal.  

2) The communication framework as mentioned in the title is not presented clearly. It should provide the description about all elements and aspects related to the framework systematically. A hierarchical framework is expected to help readers understand fully.  

3) Besides the description of framework and its function, the reasons why to choose some specific techniques should be addressed in the article to demonstrate the academic works carried out to achieve the framework, such that, readers could have experience or feeling on the application confidentially.

•  

Therefore, some improvement for the presentation of framework and enhancement of academic results for the article are warmly welcome such that the article could be more suitable for the publication in the journal.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We hope that we have addressed all your concerns correctly.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and needs some improvements to be published.

The introduction has to involve recent related works,

All figures have to be presented in clear shape, for example, figure 2, define all parts of the presented device, so the reader can understand it clearly,

Related works part is too short, extend it,

Figure 1, is the model applicable for only private cars, what about the public buses?

Present the recent works related to urban transport

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We hope that we have addressed all your concerns correctly.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting, it has a well­-defined contribution and provides an evaluation.

The concepts are well introduced and discussed. The problems are well defined and objective.

The technical depth of the paper is appropriate for the knowledgeable individual working in the field.

The paper is generally well structured and organized.

Just a a minor suggestion to improve the paper. Some references are incomplete, abbreviated, or not properly formatted.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this article, the authors present the design of an implemented roadside and cloud architecture for the support of C-ITS services. However, I will comment on some aspects to improve the quality of the manuscript, and the suggested changes should be highlighted:

-The authors miswrite the acronyms. The correct way to write them is with the initial letter of the meaning of the acronym, such as "Cooperative 1 Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS)". This error must be fixed in all acronyms throughout the document.

-Manuscript objects such as Figures, Tables, Algorithms, Equations, and Sections must be written with their first initial letter in capital letters.

-Some acronyms do not contain their corresponding meaning.

-Lines 261, 275, 282-288, 290, it needs to be understood what object it is, whether it is a Figure, Equation or Algorithm. Authors must define correctly. In addition, there is a vertical line in these lines, which must be removed.

-What version of MOBICS are you using? The authors must give more details.

Why have the authors yet to test their proposal in other scenarios?

-What happens to communication when there are obstacles? How do you solve the authors' proposal?

-What is the maximum range of distance that you have a communication?

-The Figures containing maps must include in their axes the geographic coordinates, the scale from which source it has been obtained and a legend so that the reader knows what the points have.

-Figures 9, 10, and 11 have not placed the unit on the ordinate axis.

-The conclusions must be improved and future work presented.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We hope that we have addressed all your concerns correctly.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The points which were mentioned in my review have been addressed mostly in the revision of paper. It seems good for the publication in the journal now. 

Author Response

Thank you again for your feedback. We have reviewed the text and have conducted a complete spell check to ensure the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is revised accordingly. 

 

Author Response

Thank you again for your feedback. We have reviewed the text and have conducted a complete spell check to ensure the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the authors for performing the suggested changes. However, some acronyms still need to be corrected, and the manuscript has some strikethroughs. Before the publication of this article, the authors must perform a minor spell check in the text.

Author Response

Thank you again for your feedback. We have reviewed the text and have conducted a complete spell check to ensure the quality of our manuscript. Missing acronyms were also added. Strikethroughs were left to provide the reviewer with hints were text was deleted.