Intentions to Charge Electric Vehicles Using Vehicle-to-Grid Technology among People with Different Motivations to Save Energy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Please to compose a paragraph connected with a veriables description - page 4. Try do not use a bracet side by side - for. ex. () [], etc.

2. Remember about a dots at the sentences end.

3. A paragraphs which were started with "-" should be build on no more than a single sentence (simply or complex). If it need more description, than try to change of paragraph composition.

4. Please add more information about sample structure achievement - how do you obtain the sample? for ex. Is it refers to society structure? etc.

5. Table 1 - please compose more clearly, for ex. with the units for each value - it needs to be described.

6. Fig. 1 - try to change for other style of presentation for graph, why you were used a broken line, what happens between each seperate values there? The table below is not necessary, mayby better will be a bar graph with a category at horizontal axis.

7. "p" -what this? sometimes you wrote p=0.xxx, sometimes p=.xxx? please check it - for. ex. paragraph before table 2.

8. Please add description for values signes - there are some with out it.

9. Please recompose a data which were presented in table 3.

10. "*" - ?

11. You made a discussion - and it is good, but try to formulate a conclussions which will be directly connected with your research results.

12. Try to use a "passive voice" for a sentence structure.

13. "The data show ..." - it is not alive? it can't show?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,          

We would like to thank you for your time dedicated to checking our manuscript. We appreciate the additional feedback received which helped us to further improve our manuscript.  Below you will find how we addressed the comments received - we have placed the responses below the comments.

Best regards, 

Authors

1. Please to compose a paragraph connected with a variables description - page 4. Try do not use a bracet side by side - for. ex. () [], etc.

• Thank you for this comment. We have incorporated these changes.

2. Remember about a dots at the sentences end.

• Corrected (for example, on page 4).

3. A paragraphs which were started with "-" should be build on no more than a single sentence (simply or complex). If it need more description, than try to change of paragraph composition.

• The entire text went through proofreading once again to correct such and other linguistic errors. 

4. Please add more information about sample structure achievement - how do you obtain the sample? for ex. Is it refers to society structure? etc.

• Expanded in the Materials and Methods section.

5. Table 1 - please compose more clearly, for ex. with the units for each value - it needs to be described.

• Supplemented in Table 1.

6. Fig. 1 - try to change for other style of presentation for graph, why you were used a broken line, what happens between each seperate values there? The table below is not necessary, mayby better will be a bar graph with a category at horizontal axis.

• Thank you for this comment. The chart has been changed according to the suggestion. 

7. "p" -what this? sometimes you wrote p=0.xxx, sometimes p=.xxx? please check it - for. ex. paragraph before table 2.

• Thank you. This has now been corrected.

8. Please add description for values signes - there are some with out it.

• Added

9. Please recompose a data which were presented in table 3.

• The description of the Tukey test results in Table 3 has been expanded.  

10. "*" - ?

• The intention of the '*' sign in Table 2 was to describe the interaction between the Reward Level and Motivation variables to save energy. This has been changed to a description. 

11. You made a discussion - and it is good, but try to formulate a conclussions which will be directly connected with your research results.

• The article has been supplemented with conclusions.

12. Try to use a "passive voice" for a sentence structure.

• As we mentioned in point 3, the text went through proofreading once again to avoid language errors. 

13. "The data show ..." - it is not alive? it can't show?

• Proofreading of the entire text was carried out

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Keywords should be single words and not multiple words 

Incentives if offered to users, they may go for V2G. Mention this in paper 

There could be additional reasoning apart from 4 points mentioned in paper 

User qualification and branch like science or commerce etc could change results- Mention points like this. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,          

We would like to thank you for your time dedicated to checking our manuscript. We appreciate the additional feedback received which helped us to further improve our manuscript.  Below you will find how we addressed the comments received - we have placed the responses below the comments.

Best regards, 

Authors

 

Keywords should be single words and not multiple words 

• For the subject matter covered in the article, keywords comprising several words are used because there are no adequate terms that express concepts like ‘energy flexibility’ or ‘demand response’ in a single word. For example, note the keywords in a recent article:

D'Ettorre, F., Banaei, M., Ebrahimy, R., Pourmousavi, S. A., Blomgren, E. M. V., Kowalski, J., Bohdanowicz, Z., Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, B., Biele, C., & Madsen, H. (2022). Exploiting demand-side flexibility: State-of-the-art, open issues and social perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 165, 112605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112605

Incentives if offered to users, they may go for V2G. Mention this in paper 

• This point has been added to the the limitations of the study.

There could be additional reasoning apart from 4 points mentioned in paper 

• The discussion has now been expanded, and the article has been supplemented with conclusions. 

User qualification and branch like science or commerce etc could change results- Mention points like this. 

• This comment has now been incorporated into the section that describes the limitations of the study.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript submitted for evaluation concerns important issues related to the operation of electric vehicles. In general, the work has scientific and research potential and can be published in the journal "Sustainable", after making the necessary corrections.

The main comments on the manuscript are presented below:

1. In the first paragraph of the introduction, the authors pay attention to the energy of wind and sun, and hydropower is an equally important source. I suggest you refer to this source [Caban Gardyński] and complete this paragraph. (https://doi.org/10.5604/20804075.1062334).

2. Thus, to successfully implement new technologies, it is important to make sure that they are understood, convenient and desired by users [19]. This thread can be expanded on the research conducted by Dudziak et all. [https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185778].

3. I think that this articles will be helpful to improve your manuscript:

https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10070578

https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062137

https://doi.org/10.3390/pl15093120 

https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/140256

https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248346

https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2021.1.A1-A13

Polish Energy Sector: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020553

4. page 5. You enter the value of the parameter p in the wrong format, eg. p = .890. it should be p = 0.890. and p = .52 it should be p = 0.52. Similar errors appear on page 6 in the paragraph before Table 4.

5. check the record: F (12,4579) is it correct?

6. Chapter 4 Discussion is needed, but there are too few references to other scientific works, it should be slightly edited.

7. You should also add another chapter "Conclusions" and select the most important premises from your research.

In addition, the manuscript is interesting and brings new light to the development of electromobility.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,          

We would like to thank you for your time dedicated to checking our manuscript. We appreciate the additional feedback received which helped us to further improve our manuscript.  Below you will find how we addressed the comments received - we have placed the responses below the comments.

Best regards, 

Authors

1. In the first paragraph of the introduction, the authors pay attention to the energy of wind and sun, and hydropower is an equally important source. I suggest you refer to this source [Caban Gardyński] and complete this paragraph. (https://doi.org/10.5604/20804075.1062334).

• Thank you. The introduction has now been supplemented by a suggested reference to the role of hydropower. 

2. Thus, to successfully implement new technologies, it is important to make sure that they are understood, convenient and desired by users [19]. This thread can be expanded on the research conducted by Dudziak et all. [https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185778].

• Thank you for this suggestion. The article mentioned is about autonomous cars, which is a different subject from stabilising the power grid with the potential of electric car batteries. For this reason, we have decided not to incorporate this reference. 

3. I think that this articles will be helpful to improve your manuscript:

https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10070578

https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062137

https://doi.org/10.3390/pl15093120  - I could not find article with this DOI

https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/140256

https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248346

https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2021.1.A1-A13

Polish Energy Sector: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020553

• Thank you for your suggestions. We have now incorporated a reference to the article, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062137  about using electric car-charging to absorb surplus energy in the electric grid. 

4. page 5. You enter the value of the parameter p in the wrong format, eg. p = .890. it should be p = 0.890. and p = .52 it should be p = 0.52. Similar errors appear on page 6 in the paragraph before Table 4.

• Thank you. This has now been corrected.

5. check the record: F (12,4579) is it correct?

• Yes, it is correct.

6. Chapter 4 Discussion is needed, but there are too few references to other scientific works, it should be slightly edited.

• Thank you for this suggestion. The discussion has now been expanded. 

7. You should also add another chapter "Conclusions" and select the most important premises from your research.

• The article has now been supplemented with conclusions.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

While the paper claims to be a review paper, it is presented more like a discussion paper with no proper review method. This creates serious doubts over the databases and sources used to shortlist the articles. My main concern is about the method of the paper. There is no mention of how the review was conducted. No systematic review and guidelines were applied to the selection, analysis, and report process, which can bring problems to the reproducibility of the process and reliability of the collected and selected information. What databases are used, and what is the search string used in databases to retrieve relevant papers? Please have a look at some recent review papers and revise the article properly:

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,          
We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. However, we are under the impression that the review we received does not apply to our article. It refers to a 'review paper', which our article is not. Therefore, we have not prepared responses addressed to this review, but we are ready to prepare them after receiving the review that is addressed to our article. 
Furthermore, we would like to inform you that the version of the article currently available in the system has been supplemented with the comments received in the other reviews and the article has undergone proofreading. 

 

Best regards, 
Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accpect  provided changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for introducing the corrections suggested by me and for reading the proposed literature, which they partially included in this version of the manuscript. I agree with the comments and thank you for your comments. I believe that the article in the presented form can be submitted for publication in the journal.

Thank you.