Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of paper is very long and also not clear to related research. 

2. The author said in the abstract that online survey have taken and data is collected but why author not mentioned that what are the online platform used for the collection of data (Obviously 1435 genuine valid response from parents are not small data).

3. The abstract should be re-arranged and some important findings should mentioned in the abstract.

4.  What were the characteristics and demographics of the respondents involved in the study, and what were the prevalent patterns in terms of age, number of children, driver's licenses, household size, car ownership, household income, gender distribution of children, and school transportation modes in Kerman?

5. Why the author used the word "We" almost in every section of the paper, it means, everyone contributed equally in all section of the the paper?

6. What are the implications of the rejection of the proportional odds hypothesis in the initial ordered logit model (OLM) and the subsequent adoption of the generalized ordered logit (GOL) model in analyzing parents' intentions to use SAVs for their children's school travel? How do the reported marginal effect values shed light on the critical factors influencing parents' high intention levels in adopting SAVs as a school travel mode, considering variables such as education level, environmental concern, safety beliefs, experience with crashes, innovativeness, and other socio-economic factors?

7. The conclusion of the paper are very long and it should be re-written and important points should bullet list for readers. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks that will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments.

In the revised version of the manuscript, changes have been marked up using the “Track Changes”. To properly see the changes, please select “Simple Markup” option in the track changes option, Review Tab.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, an acceptable paper. It doesn't really provide anything new that hasn't been discussed in other papers. I think the main thing here is a new context, which could be interesting, but this isn't capitalized on as much. There is too much description of how you did what you did (methods) and not what you actually found in your results. The paper would significantly benefit from additional contextualization and a deeper consideration for how this research relates to other studies. What is actually novel about what you find? Additionally, a section on limitations is needed.

Line 20. In abstract, specify that Kerman is in Iran. This is useful context.

Line 41. The research in children being driven to school is predominantly from the US. How relevant is concern in Iran?

Line 52. The thought that AVs will be higher cost is mostly not an issue now since the cost of the technology has dropped and will continue to drop before these become commercially available. Therefore, shared AVs is not necessarily the anticipated outcome any longer. This makes policy that supports sharing even more important.

There is no discussion section. You sort of have this in section 3.3, but it could be expanded. I think more needs to be done to discuss the limitations of this study. Particularly there has been a lot of critiques of these sorts of stated preference surveys when the technology they are being asked about doesn't exist. Also, some consideration of how this study conducted in Iran might be useful for other places would be good.

Some broader context of the mobility in Kerman Iran would be good to have a sense of how this place relates to other contexts.

Results rely too much on tables and does not actually discuss the results that much. Most of the results are discussed in a single (very large) paragraph on lines 295 to 345.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor spelling issues, otherwise good.

Author Response

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks that will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments.

In the revised version of the manuscript, changes have been marked up using the “Track Changes”. To properly see the changes, please select “Simple Markup” option in the track changes option, Review Tab.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is marginally acceptable. 

Author Response

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks that will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments.

In the revised version of the manuscript, changes have been marked up using the “Track Changes”. To properly see the changes, please select “Simple Markup” option in the track changes option, Review Tab.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall evaluation:

This paper explores the factors influencing parents' choice of Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) as a mode of school transportation for their children. The study uses a Generalized Ordered Logit (GOL) model for analysis, and performs a regression analysis on survey data from 1435 parents. The article describes survey methods, data analysis, and results discussion, and offers suggestions for policy and practice. The methods used in the article are feasible, and the data analysis is detailed and reasonable. However, some areas need further modification and supplementation.

The specific amendments are as follows:

1. In the Introduction, there are relatively few references and insufficient reviews of existing research. How to reflect the innovation of the research, cutting-edge? It is recommended to supplement the discussion to highlight the value of the study.

2. In the Methodology, it is recommended to add an overall overview of the city of Kerman, Iran and discuss whether the city is representative.

3. For the design and implementation process of the questionnaire, it is recommended to provide more detailed information and add the basis for the selection of variable indicators.

4. This study used the Generalized Ordered Logit (GOL) model, but the advantages of the model are not reflected compared to the models used in the established studies. Please increase the applicability of the model.

5. In the Estimation results and discussion, the results of the study are consistent with previous studies, so what is the difference? It is suggested that this discussion be supplemented.

6. Certain paragraphs are lengthy and it is suggested that the discussion be divided into points.

7. In References, the references format should be rechecked.

8. The table format is recommended to be uniform.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be improved.

Author Response

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks that will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments.

In the revised version of the manuscript, changes have been marked up using the “Track Changes”. To properly see the changes, please select “Simple Markup” option in the track changes option, Review Tab.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  Some important points of conclusions must bullet list in order to understand the clarity of paper. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is now much improved 

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks which will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commented on the part about literature review being unclear and unintegrated in the first round of review. The authors moved these paragraphs to a new section titled Literature Review but did not improve the clarity nor discuss the gap of knowledge the current attempted to study. 

There is plenty prior research about SAV, mobility, user experience, and children that were not included in the literature review. 

Willingness and intention are still used interchangeably. Which construct was the intended one? 

The literature review did not lead to the formulation of the hypotheses. The hypotheses are unjustified. 

It remains unclear what and how the surveys questions were derived from the literature. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English has improved. I appreciate the efforts there. 

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks which will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has made improvements, but there are still some shortcomings that need further adjustment.

The specific amendments are as follows:

1. In the Introduction. This section is not concise enough, and it is not recommended to use a whole paragraph to discuss one reference. The paper's contribution suggestions are included in the introduction section. This section only needs to summarize the gaps of existing research and the work to be done in this paper.

2. In the Methodology. The representative parts of the study area lack charts to illustrate the high proportion of private cars in daily travel (close to 50).

3. It is recommended to supplement the starting and ending times of the questionnaire, collect a total of how many points of the questionnaire, and how to screen for effective questionnaires

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs further improvement.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer

We appreciate your review, the time you have invested, and the valuable remarks which will enable us to improve the manuscript.

Please find attached our responses to your individual comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf