Comparison of the Sustainability and Economic Efficiency of an Electric Car and an Aircraft—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper is undoubtedly of interesting and up-to-date topic and focuses on comparison the economic efficiency between electric car and aircraft while travel distance from Kharkov (Ukraine) to Varna (Bulgaria). The structure of the manuscript is correct and in my opinion the paper can be interesting for many readers who have to decide which mean of transport should be chosen when planning the trip.

When take the overall value of the paper I recommend it for publication. However I have some minor suggestions that should be taken into account before publication:

1.       When take into account the provided results the title of the paper seems to be a bit general. Therefore I suggest to rewrite it into “Comparison of the Sustainable and Economic Efficiency of an Electric Car and an Aircraft – a Case Study”

2.       On lines 64 and 65 you write that “The traditional five environmental pollutants include emissions from road transport”. I suggest to support this thesis by relevant publications or results. I think the publications with dois: 10.26552/com.C.2021.4.B265-B277 and 10.3390/su11082188 would be helpful.

3.       Although the literature review is well done I suggest also to add the publication with doi: 10.1109/AUTOMOTIVESAFETY47494.2020.9293526 that emphasizes the development trends of electric vehicles in the context of road passenger and freight transport.

4.       Some insufficiency of the paper is that it takes into account only one case of a trip. Although the presented results are interesting, it would be more valuable to take into account different distances of the road to travel to make the results more universal. Therefore I suggest to add the directions of future research and to take into account my suggestion for future research.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We attach a file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thanks for the authors. This version of paper is better than previous.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We attach a file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?

2.Contributions should be highlighted in bullet points and justified

3. Materials and methods: I found this section very important for the readability of the paper. However, several challenges need to be addressed. Methods should be described in detail.

4.  References to literature: incorrect formatting of references to literature, namely, where statistical data or specific statements are given, it is necessary to immediately give a link. The authors have links at the end of the paragraph. See  lines: 35, 54, 73, 96-102,107, 127. Please add literature reference correctly .

5. Lines 158-159, the source is outdated. Now is 2022 year, bet the plans for 2020. What is Govt? Also please look through lines 174-176, the information is outdated.

6. Case study. Should be decsribed in detail. I think the case study could be much more clearly described by means of a figures, diagram also highlighting its potential and limit, technical parameters of selected car.

7. Discussions and results. What does mean C3 in Equation (1)? And there is no description of parameters of formula (2).
Moreover, I think that Table 2 is not needed, the same information is given as in Table 1. The results of polygon calculation could be given in text form.

8. Conclusions: Conclusions must also be revised according to the previous comments and should be compressed. In particular, they should discuss practical  implications as well as future lines of research. As it stands now, they fail to extract all the juice of your work.