Even Electric Trains Use Coal: Fixed and Relative Costs, Hidden Factors and Income Inequality in HSR Projects with Reference to Vietnam’s North–South Express Railway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution is interesting and contains a lot of useful information. It is also enriched with more progressive statistics and subsequent outputs. 

However, I would appreciate to complete in more details the methodology for solving the problem in the second chapter. I suggest to add some brief methodological procedure and also to present what scientific methods have been used. The practical outputs of the issue are well developed in the discussion, but it would be appropriate to add the scientific (theoretical) outputs. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the fixed and relative costs related to electric trains use. The topic is interesting and timely. Here are my comments to improve the paper:

1- you need to improve your abstract. You need to include the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: 1) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated; 2) the basic design of the study, i.e., the utilised methodology; 3) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, 4) a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions. At the moment, some of these aspects are missing.

2- In the introduction, make clearer what knowledge gaps you identified and how your research addresses them. Also, make the research objectives/questions clearer. Answer the “so what?” question. Why investigating such matter is important? End the introduction with an outline of the paper; what comes next?

3- The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective.  What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.

4- you need a new section on literature review. You need to acknowledge the existing literature on the issue and clearly identify the knowledge gap.

5- Including a discussion on relevant behavioural economics concepts such as sludge and psychological costs would be helpful. Here are some of the most recent references:

https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.12

https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12717

https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.61

6- What are the limitations of your methodology/study?

7- your discussion section can be improved. You need to extend this section and include more discussions on the implications of your findings for policymaking.

8- you need to refer back to the literature and previous studies in your result, discussion and conclusion sections.

9- how generalisable your findings are to other countries? Provide some discussions around the generalisability of your findings in the discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments so comprehensively. The paper reads very well now and its contributions are clear. I am happy to recommend the paper for publication.