Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 8, 2021
Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor

PONE-D-21-35527A Comparative Driving Safety Study of Mountainous Expressway Individual Tunnel and Tunnel Group Based on Eye Gaze BehaviorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Feng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

( Yes. 1.This work was supported by the Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN201900722) and the Science and Technology Bureau Foundation and Frontier Project of Chongqing (Grant No. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0695). We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

2.This work was supported by the Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN201900722) and the Science and Technology Bureau Foundation and Frontier Project of Chongqing (Grant No. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0695). 

3.National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant No.52172341))

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

(NO authors have competing interests.)

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please upload a copy of Figure 8, to which you refer in your text on page 13. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

7. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

( This work was supported by the Science and Technology Bureau Foundation and Frontier Project of Chongqing (cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0695), Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN201900722).)

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

(Yes. 

a.This work was supported by the Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN201900722) and the Science and Technology Bureau Foundation and Frontier Project of Chongqing (Grant No. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0695). We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

b.This work was supported by the Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN201900722) and the Science and Technology Bureau Foundation and Frontier Project of Chongqing (Grant No. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0695). 

c.National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant No.52172341))

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

8. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a participant

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

9. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is an interesting article. The authors conducted an extraordinary amount of field tests to study the eye gaze characteristics along a single tunnel and tunnel group. Please take the following recommendations into consideration:

1. It is better to specify the content of “suitable design”, just a brief presentation., which could be provide an information about the relationship between eye gaze characteristic and “which part of the design”.

2. Introduction line 44-48 on page 2 “The cumulative visual superposition effect is obvious, which causes an excessive visual load to drivers and can easily cause traffic accidents due to uncontrolled operation.” Is there any study supporting this claim?

3. The author often discusses about the difference of the gaze transition probability between individual tunnel and tunnel group but it is better to test the difference statistically (statistically significant or not).

4. It is good to mention the power of the Markov model used.

5. In the discussion part, please discuss published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends should be discussed.

6. Please add possible ideas for further research in the future, to line 446-448 on page 20. Elaborate, not only mention the curve section.

Reviewer #2: Generally, this is a qualified paper focused on the drivers' eye gaze behavior in tunnels of mountainous expressways. The research was conducted by a number of on-site tests that collected a lot of solid data. The research contents are proper, the methodology is reasonable and the conclusion is valid.

The following comments are used for evisions' reference.

1, Please explain why a 500m interval between two adjacent tunneal is used as threshold for defining tunnel group?

2, The definitions for short, medium, long and extra-long tunnels can be moved from "3.4 Experiment Design, L222~225" upward like "3.1 Single Tunnel and Tunnel Group Experiments", for an easier understanding.

3, L351, The two-step transfer, or The two-step transition? which word is better? like say, in the whole paper, are "transfer" and "transition" the same? could be replaceable? or used in the fixed terms each other? Please note clearly.

4, L437 "repetition" should be revised as "repeated".

5, Some comments are marked in the original paper.

Finally, English in the paper should be further polished, in order to be accurate and concise.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35527 marked.pdf
Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Comparative Driving Safety Study of Mountainous Expressway Individual Tunnel and Tunnel Group Based on Eye Gaze Behavior”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied your letter, and revised the manuscript which we hope meet with approval. Here below is our description on revision according to journal requirements and the reviewers’ comments.

According to journal requirements, we make the following statement. Firstly, we have modified the manuscript style templates to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements. Secondly, this work was supported by the Science and Technology Bureau Foundation and Frontier Project of Chongqing (cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0695), Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN201900722), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.52172341)), and there was no additional external funding received for this study, please refer to Annex 1 for the Funding Statement. Thirdly, the authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The above two points have been modified in the cover letter. The fourth, as for the use of pictures in the paper, we have removed Figure 1 from the manuscript and uploaded the copy of Figure 8(Figure 7 in the revised manuscript) see Annex 2 and. The fifth, we have uploaded the documents of consent form related to Figure 2(Figure 1 in the revised manuscript), as shown in Annex 3. In addition, we have removed any funding-related text from the manuscript and added caption for Supporting Information files at the end of the manuscript. Finally, we have reviewed our reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comment are as flowing:

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. It is better to specify the content of “suitable design”, just a brief presentation, which could be provide an information about the relationship between eye gaze characteristic and “which part of the design”.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The analysis of driver's eye gaze characteristics, such as gaze time and gaze area division are to provide data basis for gaze probability transition in section 4.3.

2. Introduction line 44-48 on page 2 “The cumulative visual superposition effect is obvious, which causes an excessive visual load to drivers and can easily cause traffic accidents due to uncontrolled operation.” Is there any study supporting this claim?

Response: Thank you very much for your questions. Yes, there are studies to support this claim. For example, Duan Mengmeng put forward the concept of " load repeat accumulation effect" to express the phenomenon of visual changes of drivers in the process of frequent access to tunnels in his research on Drive’s Visual Load at Tunnel Entrance and Exit of Sections with High Ratio of Tunnels, and pointed out that this phenomenon causes an excessive visual load to drivers and is extremely detrimental to driving safety. The " load repeat accumulation effect" proposed above is the similar concept as "The cumulative visual superposition effect " mentioned in this paper.

[1] Duan, M. M, Tang, B. M., Hu X. H., etc. “Research on driver's visual load at tunnel entrance and exit of high tunnel ratio section”. Transportation system engineering and information, vol. 18, pp. 113-119, 2018.

3. The author often discusses about the difference of the gaze transition probability between individual tunnel and tunnel group but it is better to test the difference statistically (statistically significant or not).

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Your suggestion that the use of statistical significance test is a good way to further validate the difference between single tunnel and tunnel group driver’s fixation transfer. From the one-step transfer matrix, two-step transfer matrix and steady-state matrix calculated by the Markov theory in this paper, it can be seen that the probability values of the single tunnel and tunnel group in the short, medium, long and extra-long four types of driver’s fixation points to different regions are distributed between 0~1, and the difference is not significant. The sample size is small, and the proportion of ‘0’ value in the one-step, two-step and steady-state matrix is high, so it is not suitable for the analysis of statistical significance test. In addition, we reviewed the relevant literature and found that scholars used Markov theory to study the driver's fixation transfer characteristics did not use statistical difference test for comparative analysis[2][3]. However, the suggestions you put forward are very meaningful, and we will continue to explore the methods that can analyze the difference of the driver’s fixation transfer distribution in single tunnels and tunnel groups in subsequent studies.

[2] Peng, J. S., Wang, C. W., Fu, R., etc. “Extraction of parameters for lane change intention based on driver's gaze transfer characteristics”. Safety Science, vol. 126 :104647.

[3] Guo, TI, Pan Shu, Shao Fei, etc. “Characteristics of urban tunnel driver's gaze behavior”. Journal of Southeast University (English Edition), vol. 37, pp. 325-331, 2021.

4. It is good to mention the power of the Markov model used.

Response: Thank you very much for your questions. Markov model has typical characteristics of stochastic process without aftereffect. To determine the state of the model at “T+1”, we just need to know its state at “T”, and do not need to know its previous state. Similarly, the driver in the driving process, the next fixation in the region of interest is only related to the current state, and has nothing to do with the previous fixation. If the sweep behavior is removed, all the fixation is discrete in time and state. Therefore, the use of discrete Markov chain theory can solve the problem well.

5. In the discussion part, please discuss published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends should be discussed.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have discussed the similar trends between this paper and published studies in the discussion section. Please refer to section 5 of the file named ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ for details.

6. Please add possible ideas for further research in the future, to line 446-448 on page 20. Elaborate, not only mention the curve section.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added possible ideas for further research in the future. We have marked the corrections in red in the manuscript. Please refer to section 6 of the file named ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ for details.

Reviewer #2:

1. Please explain why a 500m interval between two adjacent tunnel is used as threshold for defining tunnel group?

Response:Thank you very much for your questions. According to the early research group, we define the tunnel group from the perspective of the driver's visual characteristics. Answer in detail that a file named "Respond to Reviewers " has been uploaded.

2. The definitions for short, medium, long and extra-long tunnels can be moved from "3.4 Experiment Design, L222~225" upward like "3.1 Single Tunnel and Tunnel Group Experiments", for an easier understanding.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have correction according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. Please refer to ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ for details.

3. L351, The two-step transfer, or The two-step transition? which word is better? like say, in the whole paper, are "transfer" and "transition" the same? could be replaceable? or used in the fixed terms each other? Please note clearly.

Response: We looked through a lot of relevant references and found that “transition” is the most popular word for the “Markov transition probability”. Therefore, "The two-step transition" is used in this manuscript. In order to ensure the consistency of the words used throughout the manuscript, about “Markov transition”, we all use “transition”. In addition, “transfer” is commonly used in the “fixation point transfer; gaze transfer; visual transfer, etc”. We have marked the corrections in red in the manuscript. Please refer to ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ for details.

4. L437 "repetition" should be revised as "repeated".

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have revised the text according to the reviewer 's suggestion. Please refer to the file named ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ for details.

5. Some comments are marked in the original paper.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We modified the article according to your comments that are marked in the original paper. Please refer to ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ for details.

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some change in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in the file named ' Revised Manuscript with Track Changes '.

We appreciate for Editor and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor

A Comparative Driving Safety Study of Mountainous Expressway Individual Tunnel and Tunnel Group Based on Eye Gaze Behavior

PONE-D-21-35527R1

Dear Dr. Huang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Feng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I did think the authors have made a proper revision upon the reviewers' comments, and this paper is qualified to be published.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Feng Chen, Editor

PONE-D-21-35527R1

A comparative driving safety study of mountainous expressway individual tunnel and tunnel group based on Eye Gaze Behavior

Dear Dr. Huang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Feng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .