Identification of Driving Safety Profiles in Vehicle to Vehicle Communication System Based on Vehicle OBD Information

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Following are the  recommendations :

1. I would recommend  to avoid self citation.  

2. Although  i am not  a  fan  of  this comment. Please make the article review by a native English speaker. It needs a major linguistic corrections.

3. Typo correction needed at various places i.e. line 249 figure9. It should be Figure 9. Moreover all figures needs to be adjusted accordingly. Figure a shall contain an image of a   and   the   reader   shall  not     be  confused.

4. Figure 17 on page 21 raises my concerns that did the authors arrange a proof reading session.

5. How come title 5. Experiments & results and 7. Conclusions fall one after each other. I am missing 6. Discussions ?

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Vehicle to Vehicle Communication for Collision Avoidance System Based on Driving Behaviour Data" for publication in the MDPI: Information, we appreciate the time and effort to providing feedback on the manuscript and we are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It has been very difficult to read this manuscript since it does not present the minimum level of English that it should have to be published in an international journal.

In any case, the article presents important limitations in terms of state of the art’s review, description of methodology, quantity and quality of data used, analysis of results and conclusions.

1.- It does not present the minimum level of English that it should have a submission in order to clearly understand all the points.

2.- The abstract presents several limitations: it does not identify the major hypothesis, objectives, methods, results and conclusions. After reading the abstract it is not clear the main goal of the paper.

3.- The most important part of an introduction is to state the research objective, and introduce the reader to the literature. None of both aims (objective and literature) are identified in this section.

4.- There is not a literature review section, that it is mandatory in any research paper. With the exception that this review is included in the introduction (this is not the case).

5.- The paper is very disorganized. There is not a clear structure.

6.- There is not a discussion section (analysis of results).

7.- Based on the conclusion section, it seems that the manuscript’s goal was to identify dangerous driving behaviors (they identified 4 drivers’ behaviors based on acceleration ranges). Those are the only conclusions. If that is the objective, all the paper should be reorganized with that focus (introduction, literature review, data collection, etc.).

For all the above, I do not recommend its publication.

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Vehicle to Vehicle Communication for Collision Avoidance System Based on Driving Behaviour Data" for publication in the MDPI: Information, we appreciate the time and effort to providing feedback on the manuscript and we are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall i see a lot of improvements. However looking at the current modified version i still could not spot all of the revisions. Could you please address accordingly in words or track changes function where possibly there are the changes ?

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Identification of Driving Safety Profiles in Vehicle to Vehicle Communication System Based on Vehicle OBD Information" for publication in the MDPI: Information: Recent Advances in IoT and Cyber/Physical Security. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on the manuscript and we are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper.

Once again, thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Please find the attached file which refer to the spot the required revisions using track changes in Word Document file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns. Good job!

However, I would suggest to reduce (merge) the number of figures in the text.

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Identification of Driving Safety Profiles in Vehicle to Vehicle Communication System Based on Vehicle OBD Information" for publication in the MDPI: Information: Recent Advances in IoT and Cyber/Physical Security. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on the manuscript and we are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper.

Dear reviewer as suggest to reduce (merge) the number of figures in the text, you can find the updated version as we have made the following text and figure improvements:

1- Total number of pages in the manuscript is reduced from 28 to 25.

2-  Total number of figures in the manuscript is reduced from 27 to 21 as we merge or delete some of these figures.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Looks okay for me. No further comments.