A Review of Eco-Friendly Road Infrastructure Innovations for Sustainable Transportation

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

The main contribution was highlighted further to show the comprehensive analyses and identification of current gaps in the literature.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

The structure of the paper followed the standard sections and described the methodologies, results, and implications, ensuring that readers can follow the progression of the research. Further reviews were done to summarize the methods and results chapters.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

The review utilized the PRISMA statement and strict inclusion criteria and that ensured only quality literature was included in study.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work? 

Thorough literature review with appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work, providing a solid foundation and context for the current study.

Is the English used correct and readable?        

The manuscript has been meticulously edited for grammar, clarity, and style to ensure it meets high academic standards.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comment

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly, conducted a thorough review and correction of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. This includes addressing subject-verb agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure issues. For example, on page 4, paragraph 2, line 5, the sentence has been revised from:

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

The main contribution was highlighted further to show the comprehensive analyses and identification of current gaps in the literature.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

The structure of the paper followed the standard sections and described the methodologies, results, and implications, ensuring that readers can follow the progression of the research. Further reviews were done to summarize the methods and results chapters.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

The review utilized the PRISMA statement and strict inclusion criteria and that ensured only quality literature was included in study.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?    

Thorough literature review with appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work, providing a solid foundation and context for the current study.

Is the English used correct and readable?        

The manuscript has been meticulously edited for grammar, clarity, and style to ensure it meets high academic standards.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Methodology: It would be beneficial to provide support and citations for the methods used to select papers, PRISMA, etc.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback, citation has been provided. this change can be found – page number 3-20, line 155-292.]

Comments 2: Figures: Please include citations for sources of Figures 4 to 12.

Response 2: We have, accordingly, revised to include references to all the Figures adapted from cited literature. However, Figures 4, 5 & 6 were designed by the authors. The reviewed figures can be found in – pages 23,24 &25, and line 392,405,422,436449,468.]

Comments 3: Novelty: The novelty of the paper should be highlighted more explicitly.

Response 3: We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize the novelty in the research in the introduction, in the body of the work and in the conclusion. The novelty was highlighted in the following areas – pages 3,35 &36, and line 136-145,920-926,967-971.

Comments 4: Abbreviations: Please expand abbreviations such as 'ICT' (Information and Communication Technology), 'GPS' (Global Positioning System), and 'LiDAR' (Light Detection and Ranging) in line 717 for clarity."

Response 4: We have, accordingly, revised to ensure all abbreviations are expanded when first mentioned in the body of the work. Subsequent mentions of the abbreviations remained in short form. For example, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) was mentioned in full in – pages 7, Paragraph 1, and line 258. It was subsequently abbreviated in all other instances thereafter.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

We have, accordingly, conducted a thorough review and correction of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. This includes addressing subject-verb agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure issues. For example, on page 4, paragraph 2, line 5, the sentence has been revised from:

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

The main contribution was highlighted further to show the comprehensive analyses and identification of current gaps in the literature.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

The structure of the paper followed the standard sections and described the methodologies, results, and implications, ensuring that readers can follow the progression of the research. Further reviews were done to summarize the methods and results chapters.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

The review utilized the PRISMA statement and strict inclusion criteria and that ensured only quality literature was included in study.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?    

Thorough literature review with appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work, providing a solid foundation and context for the current study.

Is the English used correct and readable?        

The manuscript has been meticulously edited for grammar, clarity, and style to ensure it meets high academic standards.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors systematically explore current research using the PRISMA guidelines, offering insights into various innovations and their applications. The manuscript’s structure is logical, beginning with a detailed introduction that underscores the importance of eco-friendly road infrastructure in mitigating environmental impacts and aligning global sustainability goals. From a complete standpoint, the manuscript discusses recycled materials, renewable energy integration, AI and machine learning applications, and regulatory frameworks, among other subjects. However, the paper lacks discussion depth in certain areas. For instance, the discussions on public acceptance and the economic implications of these innovations could benefit from more detailed analysis and real-world examples. In addition, it is suggested that the manuscript could improve by incorporating more quantitative data and case studies to support its findings. This would enhance the credibility and applicability of the research, providing a stronger foundation for future studies and policymaking.

Response 1: Thank you for the review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your positive comments regarding our systematic exploration of current research using the PRISMA guidelines and the logical structure of our manuscript. We are pleased that you found our discussions on various innovations and their applications valuable.

We acknowledge your suggestion to provide a more in-depth discussion on public acceptance and the economic implications of these innovations. We have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed analysis in these areas, incorporating additional real-world examples to better illustrate the challenges and opportunities associated with public acceptance and economic viability. This should provide a clearer understanding of these critical aspects.

Regarding your recommendation to incorporate more quantitative data and case studies, we have made efforts to include relevant quantitative data and have integrated additional case studies where applicable. However, it is important to note that the scope of our review is inherently limited to the information available in the articles we reviewed. While we strive to present comprehensive and robust findings, the availability of quantitative data and detailed case studies within the reviewed literature sometimes constrains our ability to provide extensive empirical evidence.

We hope that these revisions address your concerns and enhance the overall quality and applicability of our research. We believe that the added depth and examples will provide a stronger foundation for future studies and policymaking in the field of eco-friendly road infrastructure. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in improving our manuscript. these changes can be found – page number 3-20, line 155-292.]

Comments 2: Another critical concern is the extensive use of AI-generated images, particularly in Figures 10 to 12. While these images are visually appealing, they contribute minimally to the informational content of the paper. Academic graphs should prioritize helping to understand and substantiate the text. The reliance on AI-generated images may detract from the manuscript's overall credibility and effectiveness. The authors are encouraged to replace or supplement these images with more informative graphics, such as data charts, process diagrams, or case study illustrations, to provide readers with valuable and actionable insights.

Response 2: We have, accordingly, replaced the figures and included references for those adapted from cited literature. The reviewed figures can be found in – pages 23,24 &25, and line 392,405,422,436449,468.]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

We have, accordingly, conducted a thorough review and correction of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. This includes addressing subject-verb agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure issues. For example, on page 4, paragraph 2, line 5, the sentence has been revised from:

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

The main contribution was highlighted further to show the comprehensive analyses and identification of current gaps in the literature.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

The structure of the paper followed the standard sections and described the methodologies, results, and implications, ensuring that readers can follow the progression of the research. Further reviews were done to summarize the methods and results chapters.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

The review utilized the PRISMA statement and strict inclusion criteria and that ensured only quality literature was included in study.

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?           

Thorough literature review with appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work, providing a solid foundation and context for the current study.

Is the English used correct and readable?        

The manuscript has been meticulously edited for grammar, clarity, and style to ensure it meets high academic standards.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This literature has obtained high-quality literature covering a wide range of research fields related to environmentally friendly road infrastructure by screening a large number of literatures, expanding knowledge in this field, summarizing the current research and development status, as well as the challenges faced in the field of eco-friendly road infrastructure, and providing direction for future research and policy discussions to improve the sustainability and performance of roads.

The structure of the article is reasonable and logical, but the following changes should be made before publication:

There are too many keywords in this article, it is recommended to refine the key points.

Images and tables must appear immediately after being first mentioned in the text, for example, Figure 5 only appears in the article a long time after it is first mentioned.

Response 1: We appreciate your recognition of our comprehensive review on environmentally friendly road infrastructure. In response to your recommendations, we have refined the list of keywords to better highlight the key points of our research, ensuring enhanced clarity and focus. Additionally, we have repositioned all images and tables to appear immediately after their first mention in the text, including adjusting the placement of Figure 5. These changes aim to improve the readability and coherence of our article. We believe these adjustments will further enhance the quality and impact of our work. Thank you for your valuable feedback and consideration, which has been instrumental in improving our manuscript. these changes can be found – page number 1, line 29-30.]

Comments 2: The novelty issue of the article has not been fully emphasized, and after summarizing a large number of research literature on ecological friendly road infrastructure, has the knowledge gap that previous articles could not solve been summarized

Response 2: We acknowledge the need to emphasize the novelty of our article and have taken steps to address this. We have revised the manuscript to clearly highlight the unique contributions of our work, including our comprehensive synthesis of existing research and the identification of unresolved knowledge gaps. Specifically, we have provided a detailed summary of the limitations and challenges noted in previous studies, and we have outlined specific areas where further investigation is needed to advance the field of eco-friendly road infrastructure. These revisions aim to underscore the novel insights and contributions of our research, thereby addressing the concerns raised. We appreciate your valuable comments and believe these enhancements will significantly strengthen the impact and relevance of our article. The changes can be found in – pages 3&34, and line 131-141 and 888-892.]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

We have, accordingly, conducted a thorough review and correction of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. This includes addressing subject-verb agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure issues. For example, on page 4, paragraph 2, line 5, the sentence has been revised from:

5. Additional clarifications