Research on Tacit Knowledge Dissemination of Automobile Consumers’ Low-Carbon Purchase Intention
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend the manuscript for publication after considering the following suggestions which their addressing will fit the manuscript for publication.
Comments are given below:
1. The experimental conditions for each experiment must be listed with the captions of Figures and Tables.
2. More profound discussions and comparison with other published works are welcomed.
3. Check the sources, since there are some that are not referenced.
4. How many times do each experiment conducted for each condition?
5. Please check the grammar, uniformity in reference format, and spell-check is necessary throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting but the authors should bring some clarifications:
What is new about the research and the results obtained
How do they influence energy efficiency
How are the coefficients used determined and how do they relate to physical reality?
Are there methods to determine?
The article in this form seems just a mathematical research
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article, entitled “Tacit Knowledge Dissemination of New Energy Vehicle Power Battery Reverse Supply Chain——Based on Differential Dynamics” presents the evolution process of consumers' intention to purchase the new energy vehicles using the improved SIR model. The current version of the manuscript needs revision, some recommendations should be addressed.
1. The abstract should be improved. Authors should address the relevance of the research topic and underline the scientific novelty of the results obtained.
2. The manuscript is not well-formatted. Please, follow the Authors Instructions. The sections Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, are mandatory.
3. The text should be edited. Authors should avoid repetitions (e.g., lines 41-42 - please exclude the repetition (“actively”)). The English style needs revision.
4. The Introduction should be extended. Please show the research gap and authors’ hypothesis.
5. Please check, that the size font should be legible at all Figures (Fig.1, 4..)
6. The section Materials and Methods is required with a proper presentation of the research methodology.
7. What was the practical approbation of the results obtained? Any case study, which could be a part of the section Results (which Authors should prepare in a revised version of the manuscript)?
8. The results obtained should be compared with a key literature in the field.
9. The Reference List should be extended, with more citations of the key literature in the research field.
10. The authors didn’t address other factors, influencing the intention of consumers to purchase the new energy vehicles. In fact, the major of these factors is the price, which should come to be competitive with the traditional vehicles. In addition – if to talk about the comparison between different types of vehicles, authors should address different ways to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide and toxic pollutants, applicable for different types of vehicles.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the revision done to improve the manuscript. However, some further amendments still are required.
1. Please check the title of the manuscript (——)
2. The manuscript should be properly written in a third person. Also, please address my previous recommendation to check the paper format, following the Instruction for Authors.
3. Lines 107-128 – the italics should be excluded.
4. Section 2.2. title – should be written from a new line.
5. For all the articles, sections Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion are mandatory – authors should fit the content of the manuscript to these sections.
6. Figures 6-8, 11, 12 – please, change black in white color.
7. A part of the Conclusions could be introduced in Discussion, which can also include a comparison with other studies, using different approaches. This can also show the advantages of the results, obtained by authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I recommend you to reduce Title od the paper, which is too long in its current version.
As previously notified - sections Materials and Methods and Results, Discussion are mandatory, while Conclusions is optional section. You don't need to re-write you manuscript - but the structure needs revision, and should be re-arranged, as it was in the previous versions. The current section Conclusions is too big, and in fact presents a part of Dscussion. As I recommended in the previous raund of review - a part of Conclusions can be introduced in a section Discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
