Analysis of Incentives to Eco-Driving for Car Rental Companies’ Customers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic selection and the used methods are in line with the scientific needs, problem formulation meets real problems, and the elaboration is correct. Though, I have to ask the authors for a revision of the paper. The concise explanation for my suggestion is that it is too much. It rather seems to be a PhD dissertation or a research report than a research article.

The paper shows complete research, including all details of the progress. All details of the systematic literature review as well as the detailed explanations of the methodological issues go beyond the necessary limits. Although the paper is longer than usual in this journal, the backgorund explanations consume valuable space from the results and conclusions.

I suggest rethinking the structure and highlighting the say of the research. Based on the quality of the study, the authors can do this easily.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject is interesting, however the way of approaching it is very poor. The document is difficult to read and its results are very poor.
Main weaknesses:
- The objective of the research is not clearly mentioned in the abstract. The results are not relevant.
- The introduction is very poor, the subject under study is not adequately contextualized, relying on the relevant academic literature. Many statements are written that are not cited correctly, for example, the authors after analyzing the literature on the subject ... What literature? Not mentioned, what gap is identified? and therefore, it leads the authors to propose the investigation, What is the novelty of the study? For whom will the results be valid? Clearly state the methodology.
- Section 3, I do not understand what this section does here, since the study (objective of the research) is not to carry out a bibliometric analysis. On the other hand, very poor analysis.
- Section 4. Discussion. It does not make sense yet the data relating to the investigation has not been analyzed. Section 3 and 4 should be deleted, does not add anything, or include the information briefly in the introduction or at the beginning of section 5. Literature background.
- Section 5 literature review is adequate.
- The questionnaire and methodology used is very poor, the information it provides is very poor.
- Section 7: very poor, does not provide relevant results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

First of all, I would like to mention and the interesting and well-described idea of your article. You address an up-to-date topic of using incentives to motivate customers for more eco-driving rentals. I find the idea very appealing. 

However, there are some parts of the article that need to be improved. I will make them as the general list organized by chapters: 

1. The title of the article is appealing and catchy, but the article content talks a lot about other aspects, like the reduction of car pollution, rather than incentives. 
2. The introduction does mention and explains the value of the topic. But it is not clear what are the incentives you are talking about. Method and data collection could be mentioned more in detail. For example, it is not clear about the ‘application’ that you mention. Also, you talk about the various method in the abstract, but do not explain them in the introduction. Expected contributions to literature and practice could be mentioned. The order of the main parts of the article should be mentioned. 
3. Materials and Methods explain the process of literature review. However, it seems that you are not focusing on the incentives (main objective), but on the reductions in the pollution level, etc. Could you comment on it? And, why did you focus on these two databases specifically?
4. Results describe an analysis of the literature and its organization. But, it seems that you are focusing on other than stated in the title and introduction objectives. And, the incentives for eco-driving rentals are mentioned only as of the latest put. I am confused about the phrase ‘Due to the subject of this paper, the authors also decided’. Isn’t research gaps and actuality of the topic motivated authors? Moreover, if it was the main aim of the study, could you specify more about the article which has been found, like keywords, year, journal, etc.?
5. Literature background? Here I am confused. I expected the literature background before the results, methods, and discussion section. The flow of the ideas and the structure should be improved. The description of pollution problems takes very much space considering that the main topic is incentives. In my opinion, the incentives mentioned are not connected with the eco-driving concept. Or, you should explain the meaning of eco-driving better, or justify the connections. Moreover, some hypothesis can be stated in the Literature review part. 
6. The research study explains specifically and in-detail data collection procedure and sample. But adding a list of questions would enrich the explanations. 
7. The results are interesting. But the discussion can be improved. When you make an explanation of the results it is not clear why do you talk about application installation. I think it is the gap that you have in the Literature review organization and introduction. Moreover, a more close connection between discussion and literature review needed. 
8. Conclusions mention some objectives which have not been stated in the introduction. The practical implications of the research are not explained. 

 

I hope these comments can help the authors to improve the article. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

When reviewing scientific papers for publication, I usually start with a general overview in terms of a structure, abstract, literature review, methodology, findings of the research, discussion, conclusions, as well as limitations of the study and future directions of the research. I also pay attention to the language level, especially if the paper is written in English, and English is not the native language.

The topic can be considered as actual and valuable from the point of view of further research in the area.

The main problem with the paper is that its structure is inappropriate; though it includes most of the parts that should be presented in the scientific paper, their order as well as to some extent the contents are not correct. It should follow the IMRAD structure, i.e. Introduction – Literature review – Methods – Results – Discussion and – Conclusions.

There are also some other reservations to the manuscript.

Secondly, abstract. It should be done acc. to the 'from general to details' rule, so first 1-2 introductory sentences, then the purpose of the paper, methodology and finally main findings. There are some introductory sentences and general information about the topic being investigated. In turn, there is neither presentation of the research sample, nor purpose of the study. Key findings of the research are presented, however up to a point only. In addition, one cannot write that ‘something were developed’ ... If so, you should give more details on it.

Thirdly, Introduction is underdeveloped. Where is the research gap and its justification?

Fourthly, Discussion section should discuss the results achieved; In addition, there should be references to the results of other scholars. Unfortunately there is almost nothing in this part, and the second aspect is missing at all.

You can use some sentences from Interpretation of results (which suit Discussion section). You should also write Conclusions with contribution to the theory.

I also recommend a final proofreading of the paper to be done by the native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I maintain my opinion about the proper topic selection and good contribution to the field.

The corrections made by the authors improved the text and the understanding.

In the present form, I can recommend the publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a very important effort and have significantly improved the content of the document. However, the following limitations are still present:
- The questionnaire and methodology used is very poor, the information it provides is very poor.
- Section 7: very poor, does not provide relevant results.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors.

Thank you very much for your reply and the corrections made, which I fully accept. In my opinion, the article is much better now and can be published.