unfortunately my paper got titled
Ali Moallim
Manuscript
Title: Development of Smart Demand Responsive Transport System and Integration into Conventional Public Transport Authors: Ali Moallim, Umer Waqas, Muhammad Rusyadi, Jae-Min Lee, Dong-Seong Kim Technical Track: TT Complex Engineering Systems and Systems Engineering Main Keywords: CC-00. Computer and Control Systems CC-90. Applications II-90. Real-time information systemsAuthor Database
1st author: Mr. Ali Moallim, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Korea (South) <amoal...@gmail.com> 2nd author: Mr. Umer Waqas, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Korea (South) <umer...@kumoh.ac.kr> 3rd author: Mr. Muhammad Rusyadi, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Korea (South) <muhamma...@gmail.com> 4th author: Mr. Jae-Min Lee, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Korea (South) <ljm...@kumoh.ac.kr> 5th author: Mr. Dong-Seong Kim, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Korea (South) <ds...@kumoh.ac.kr>Technical Details
Transaction Number: TD-003735 Data Type: pdf Date: 1525656786 Origin: 202.31.137.122/202.31.137.122 Status: OK - submission completed
Feedback from the Reviewers
C. Clarity of presentation: English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree] Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree] Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [2 - I am neutral] The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [1 - I disagree] Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [2 - I am neutral] T. Technical innovation and relevance The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree] Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [1 - I disagree] The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree] New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [1 - I disagree] Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree] Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [1 - I disagree] Comments: The paper presents a simulated prototype of a SDR transport system. The presented high-level architecture is technically sound, however there is nothing mentioned related to the crucial details of the integration into conventional public transport, since there is a vast amount of interoperability issues related to the available ITS and e-ticketing standards. The simple, basic RFID operation principles by no means cover the real problem issues. The paper should have been focused on the tangible contribution to a well-described research sub-domain during the last decade (and more…). Comparison with the fixed route systems alone is not enough – the proposed scheduling algorithm results should have been compared to other exiting proposals in the available literature.
C. Clarity of presentation: English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [4 - I strongly agree] Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree] Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [3 - I agree] The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree] Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [3 - I agree] T. Technical innovation and relevance The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree] Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [3 - I agree] The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [3 - I agree] New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [3 - I agree] Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [3 - I agree] Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [3 - I agree] Comments: This paper presents a very interesting topic and provides practical results based on a simulation. As a reader I would be keen to know more about the dataset used to test the platform, i.e. how realistic and complex is the 6 hour and 10 bus arrangement. More information about the scalability of the approach to a large city would also be interesting, as would comparison to any similar solutions in the evaluation section. Overall the topic is interesting and valuable and I would be keen to see more information about it presented at the conference.
C. Clarity of presentation: English grammar and spelling are proper ------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree] Mathematical symbols and equations are easy to understand ------------------------ [3 - I agree] Figures and tables are well constructed and informative -------------------------- [3 - I agree] The paper is well organized ------------------------------------------------------ [3 - I agree] Considering the issues above, the paper is readable ------------------------------ [3 - I agree] T. Technical innovation and relevance The authors cite other relevant publications ------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree] Authors describe relevance of work to the research field ------------------------- [2 - I am neutral] The authors apply sound technical approaches ------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree] New ideas are convincingly and logically described ------------------------------- [2 - I am neutral] Results are convincing ----------------------------------------------------------- [1 - I disagree] Considering the issues above, this work should be presented --------------------- [2 - I am neutral] Comments: The paper deals with demand response transport system and easy to follow and the English grammar is proper. Hence, this reviewer struggles with the scientific contributions and the authors needs to highlight this in a much better way. Moreover, how does the proposed approach differ from others?