Are They All Equal? Uncovering Adopter Groups of Battery Electric Vehicles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No comments.
I am not very interested in this kind of sociological research on electric vehicles. But still - good work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
We would like to thank you very much for your fair assessment of our paper. We have eliminated minor typos and spelling errors in the most recent version of the manuscript. We are sorry to hear that your interests lie in a different research area. However, we very much appreciate your positive attitude towards the paper.
Kind regards,
The Author Team
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very nice paper in a rather relevant topic.
The paper is well motivated and well written. The results are presented clearly and it’s implications spelled out.
A rather minor concern is the existence of a few typos. I would recommend having the paper edited by a native speaker. I think however that just the authors reading again the whole paper to ore the the typos will do.
Regardless, this paper deserves an attentive audience.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
We would like to thank you very much for your fair and constructive assessment of our paper. We carefully went through the manuscript again to eliminated typos and spelling errors. Thank you for your comments! We very much appreciate your positive attitude towards the paper.
Kind regards,
The Author Team
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall comments:
Although the study revealed the existence of different segments within the BEV market it did not explain why such segment became apparent in the market. The study could have been more interesting if the authors could also find out how differences in the consumers' living style, social status and demographic factors are related to the difference in the segments identified from the study. Hence, I feel the authors should explain such limitations of the study.
Specific comments:
1. p.5, ln171. Hierachical Bias should be Hierachical Bayes.
2. p.7, ln196. The authors should explain why the sample respondents have been limited to students and staff in France. The paper should clarify potential bias that may occur by only having French residence to attend the experiment.
3. p.8, ln199. "respondents’ personal characteristics and demographics." The authors should show the details of the respondents’ personal characteristics and demographics in a table to explain the details of the samples used for the study purpose.
4. p.8, ln258. 9.832% should be 9.823%.
5. p.11, 5.3 Future Research and Limitations. The authors should also mention that they could have investigated how BEV adoption behavior are different based on consumer status and demographic factors such as income, gender, and age.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
We would like to thank you for your fair evaluation and your constructive comments on the paper. We carefully analyzed your comments and suggestions and thoroughly revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find a complete list of changes in the attached document.
Kind regards,
The Author Team
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The caption numbers in the tables should be removed or modified.
After checking for minor grammatical errors and typos I think the paper is ready to be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
We would like to thank you very much for your second assessment of our paper. We have eliminated minor typos and grammatical errors in the most recent version of the manuscript. Unfortunatelly, we are not quiet sure what you mean by "The caption numbers in the tables should be removed or modified.". We have double-checked the formatting suggestions in the style guide and believe to adhere to those. If that is not what you meant by your above stated suggestion, we would be grateful for an additional hint what to do and will be happy to make adjustments in the caption numbers of the tables.
Kind regards,
The Author Team
