A Methodological Framework Based on a Quantitative Assessment of New Technologies to Boost the Interoperability of Railways Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

 

The presented paper is undeniably topical in nature, especially in view of the decrease in anthropogenic influence.

But despite the importance of the topic raised, there are a number of scientific observations:

1. In the Abstract, indicate specific results.

2. Add a graphical representation of the relationship between the tourist's desire to save and the desire to receive high-quality services.

3. Do people with disabilities need different types of travel planning? maybe it is necessary to divide tourists into groups and investigate separately?

4. What forecast can you give after the end of the pandemic?

5. Justify what are the limitations of using the research and analysis methods chosen by the authors.

6. Conclusions indicate no specific result.

7. The reference must be formed in the appropriate MDPI format.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and considerations, which have allowed us to improve our paper drastically.

In the attached document, in yellow highlight, you can see how we tried to address your comments.

See below how we have addressed each of your comments:

1. In the Abstract, indicate specific results

We have already included results in the abstract (Please check tracked changes in the abstract of the updated version)

2. Add a graphical representation of the relationship between the tourist's desire to save and the desire to receive high-quality services

We have introduced in section 4.8.1(table 7) of the revised paper a graphical representation of the correlation between the tourist's desire to save and the desire to receive high-quality services(those with p<0.05).

3. Do people with disabilities need different types of travel planning? Maybe it is necessary to divide tourists into groups and investigate separately?

The ANOVA test showed that the variable of time-saving by using the journey planning functionality provided by OASA had a high significance for disabled people. We have introduced this finding in Section 4.8.3 of the revised paper.

4. What forecast can you give after the end of the pandemic?

We have added in Section 5 about "Conclusions and further developments" the next forecast after the end of the Covid-19 pandemic (please check the revised version of the paper):

"As an additional conclusion of this Bayesian Network analysis, we can forecast that the selection of safe and not-crowded routes is a priority for tourists after the end of the Covid-19 pandemic."

5. Justify what are the limitations of using the research and analysis methods chosen by the authors.

We have added a new Section 4.9 about the limitations of the study. The following text has been added in this section (please, check tracked changes in the revised paper):

"Achieving a sufficient responses sample size for different socio-demographic profiles has a high significance in the results of data analysis for this study. Sometimes insufficient and limited participation can have negative impacts in the assessment phase, and it may lead to a decrease in the accuracy of data analysis. Generally, the required sample size for each Regression analysis module, Bayesian Network analysis, and ANOVA test should be considered in quantitative analysis. It should be taken into account that, for accurate and precise results in the data analysis, a sufficient sample size for both general and specific profiles should be achieved."

6. Conclusions indicate no specific result.

We have already included results in Section 5 about "Conclusions and further developments" (please, check tracked changes in the revised paper).

7. The reference must be formed in the appropriate MDPI format.

We have revised all references according to the requirements of MDPI. We modified these references: 1 to 8, 12 to 25, 27 to 33, 36, and 39 to 44. (please check the tracked version of the revised paper).

Again, thank you so much for all your valuable comments, and hoping to have addressed all of them appropriately.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks a lot for authors contributions in the transport research area. I believe the results could be interesting for TSPs and IT (Information Technology) developers, researchers, policymakers, etc.  But I still have some comments and I hope it will be helpful for improving this manuscript's quality. 

In the literature review section, to assess the effectiveness of new technologies for boosting interoperability, the authors should first analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis methods used in the previous literature. Besides, it should find the shortcomings in them from the analysis before using them as the theoretical support for the analysis of this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comment, which has allowed us to improve our paper.

We already analyzed the weaknesses of previous literature and how this study overcame them in Section 1 about "Introduction". However, you are totally right that this analysis of weaknesses and strengths supporting our study is better located in Section 2 about "Literature Review." We have moved the following paragraph to the end of this section 2:

"Other previous literature was focused on experts' scoring (AHP and VOLERE) and operational KPIs handled through data analysis methods such as the Bayesian network [10][11], but they did not take into account the satisfaction level of real users.

This updated methodology brings this novelty by including a User Satisfaction Index (USI), which is based on the needs and expectations of real users to assess by this methodology the equal and fair opportunity for everyone to access and use these new technologies.

This new approach makes the assessment methodology close to reality as it is not only a "desk" assessment but also goes to the ground. In other words, this methodology brings the evaluation process closer to real-world conditions, as it involves on-site investigation and not just an analysis based on theoretical information."

In the attached document, in yellow highlight, you can see how we tried to address your comments.

Thanks again for your valuable feedback, and hoping to have addressed your comment appropriately.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Very glad to review this paper (sustainability-2451421). Thanks for your waiting. This paper presented a methodological assessment framework to measure quantitatively how extent a specific new technology meets the needs of tourists and TSPs, making railways and public transport more attractive and consequently encouraging people to use more intermodal solutions in public transport. It is a new concept for defining demonstration scenarios on which the assessment was conducted, jointly with two quantitative types of data: Operational KPIs and USIs, which allowed the calculation of the Effectiveness of a specific innovative technology offered by a TSP to a profile group of tourists. In general, the structure of this paper is rigorous and the content is complete, but the explanation of the innovation point and contribution is not enough. There are a lot of detail problems for authors’ consideration.

 

 Main problems:

i.              In introduction, the explanation of the research background and research problems was not sufficient, and the logic of this part was not clear enough, which made people feel very confusing to read.

ii.              In Section 4.5, was the overlap between objects corresponding to different values of r taken into account?

iii.              Why were 17 people selected as the respondents of USI travellers, and how did you determine the size of the sample size?

iv.              In Table 2, why was the case of r taking other values not taken into account?

 

Minor problems:

v.              Picture 1 was compressed too narrow, and the definition was not high enough, so you had better change to a better quality picture.

vi.              At the beginning of the second paragraph of section 3.2, when quoting references, the reference number should be placed at the end of the sentence for uniform format.

vii.              It is suggested to modify the explanation of some parameters in Eq. 1 into complete sentences instead of connecting them with equal signs. The two sides of the equal sign are usually mathematical symbols.

viii.              Two TSPS appeared in the second half of line 233, which seemed to be a repetition.

ix.              In line 245, "The" in the sentence should be changed to "the" because it was in the sentence.

x.              The "[20]" at the end of line 287 should precede the period.

xi.              There was a typographical error at the end of line 229 and line 330, which led to some problems with the content.

xii.              There was no period at the end of line 340.

xiii.              Referring to Section 4.2, the contents of section 4.3 can be divided by the numbers "1" and "2".

xiv.              The last three rows of Table 4 should be placed after the third row for easy comparison.

xv.              The "Is" in line 449 and 451 should be changed to "is".

xvi.              In line 455, "Where" should be changed to "where" and “This” should be deleted.

xvii.              Figure 2 and its title were poorly legible and typographically problematic. They should be below line 446.

 

xviii.              According to the format of other table titles, the period was not required at the end of the title of Table 7.

The language level is clear. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and considerations, which have allowed us to improve our paper drastically.

In the attached document, in yellow highlight, you can see how we tried to address your comments.

See below how we have addressed each of your comments:

i.- In the introduction, the explanation of the research background and problems was insufficient, and the logic of this part was not clear enough, making people feel very confused to read.

To clarify better the readers the reason for this work, we have included in section 1, "Introduction," the following paragraph:

"Digitalization and innovative technologies (IT) are boosting the use of this public transport and MaaS (mobility as a service) solutions by citizens and tourists, and consequently to work on assessment methodologies capable of measuring quantitatively the effectiveness of these IT solutions to reach the goal of increasing the use of public transport is critical. On the other hand, the knowledge about what specific factors would increase this effectiveness, and what kind of socio-demographic profiles are accepting better these innovations are valuable information for a continuous improvement."

ii.- In Section 4.5, was the overlap between objects corresponding to different values of r taken into account?

We have introduced the following clarification in Section 4.5, just before Table 2:

"The USI surveys in this methodology will apply several questions common to all profiles (r=1 to 5), and other specific questions which are applicable only to specific profiles such as low-income people (r=2), disabled people (r=3), elderly (r=4) and women (r=5). As a result, the User Satisfaction Index (USI) for all profiles is similar to the USI for the aforementioned specific profiles but with slight differences, showing satisfaction changes when tourists belong to these specific profiles."

iii.- Why were 17 people selected as the respondents of USI travellers, and how did you determine the size of the sample size?

To clarify this point better to the readers,  we have introduced it in Section 4, just before Section 4.1, in the following paragraph:

"After following a User Engagement Strategy based on incentives, the study achieved 17 travelers willing to test these IT innovations for tourists, which is the sample size in this study data analysis."

iv.- In Table 2, why was the case of r taking other values not taken into account?

We have now included all values of "r" in Table 2. Please check tracked changes in the revised version of the paper.

Moreover, we have also improved one by one all your minor problems highlighted by you (you can check these improvements in the tracked changes of the revised version of the paper):

v. Picture 1 was compressed too narrow, and the definition was not high enough, so you had better change to a better quality picture - Done.

vi. At the beginning of the second paragraph of section 3.2, when quoting references, the reference number should be placed at the end of the sentence for uniform format - Done.

vii. It is suggested to modify the explanation of some parameters in Eq. 1 into complete sentences instead of connecting them with equal signs. The two sides of the equal sign are usually mathematical symbols - Done.

viii. Two TSPS appeared in the second half of line 233, which seemed to be a repetition - Done.

ix. In line 245, "The" should be changed to "the" because it was in the sentence - Done.

x. The "[20]" at the end of line 287 should precede the period - Done.

xi. There was a typographical error at the end of line 229 and line 330, which led to some problems with the content - Done.

xii. There was no period at the end of line 340 - Done.

xiii. Referring to Section 4.2, the contents of Section 4.3 can be divided by the numbers "1" and "2" - Done.

xiv. The last three rows of Table 4 should be placed after the third row for easy comparison - Done.

xv. The "Is" in line 449 and 451 should be changed to "is" - Done.

xvi. In line 455, "Where" should be changed to "where," and "This" should be deleted - Done.

xvii. Figure 2 and its title were poorly legible and typographically problematic. They should be below line 446 - Done.

xviii. According to the format of other table titles, the period was not required at the end of the title of Table 7 - Done.

Again, thank you so much for all your valuable and detailed comments, and hoping to have addressed all of them appropriately.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Very good article. The authors showed how tourist interest in rail transportation changed after the COVID-19 pandemic. They made a large survey-based research sample with different evaluation criteria. Regression analysis, Bayesian Networks, and ANOVA were used. Relationships between evaluation criteria with different sociodemographic groups were shown. This is help by Bayes score results. It is very good that the authors are taking many variables for analysis and checking their correlation. I would add for further research to pay attention to the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the income of railroad companies. Railroads in many countries have seen a decline in traffic as a result of the travel ban. After the pandemic subsided, many travelers did not return to the railroads. First, because of the fear of being in a large group of people, and second, because of a change in the criteria for travel quality – personal comfort. There were also new passengers on the railroad. These are those who, due to the cost of fuel, switched from cars. An additional argument is the shorter travel time, due to the fact that the train travels on a dedicated track at high speed. Another reason is the elimination of air service over which distances. This I would recommend for further research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks so much for this positive feedback, It is appreciated, and we are very glad our work has been interesting and valuable to you.

In the attached document, in yellow highlight, you can see how we tried to address your comments.

On the other hand, following your indications, we have included in Section 5, "Conclusions and further developments," the need to analyze the impact these innovative IT functionalities will have on the number of tourists and travellers using railways in a post-Covid 19 environment.

"Further developments" at the end of section 5 have been written as follows now:

"Future works will apply this quantitative assessment methodology to other demo sites with multiple demonstration scenarios set by the H2020 Shift2Rail IP4MaaS project (2020-2023) to validate its benefits, proceed with the required refinements, and explore its potential, analyze the impact of these innovative IT functionalities on the number of tourists and travellers using railways in a post-Covid 19 environment."

Again, thank you for your positive feedback, which will encourage us to continue our study and carry out further analysis as the commented one.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the authors' revision. This paper (sustainability-2451421) has been improved much according to the previous revision suggestions, but there are still two minor problems to address:

i.              In Section 3.1, you explained the parameters of Eq(1) in the form of “ : is ”, which is not standard and somewhat strange.

ii.              The layout of the content in Table 4 is still not quite right, it is better to place the last three line below the third line.

 

 

The language level is clear. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and considerations, which have allowed us to improve our paper drastically.

In the attached document, in green highlight, you can see how we tried to address your comments.

See below how we have addressed each of your comments:

i. In Section 3.1, you explained the parameters of Eq(1) in the form of “ : is ”, which is not standard and somewhat strange.

Author's answer: We have changed the way of expressing the elements of this formula (equation 1). You can see the changes in green highlight in section 3.1. 

ii. The layout of the content in Table 4 is still not quite right, it is better to place the last three line below the third line.

Author's answer: We have placed the variables considering your appropriate comments and put each variable in order to make the table easier to read. You can find these changes in green highlight in Table 4. 

Thank you so much for your valuable comments.

Kind Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx