The Platformisation of Cycling—The Development of Bicycle-Sharing Systems in China: Innovation, Urban and Social Regeneration and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with the history of bike-sharing systems in China, without providing significant elements both from a technical and economic management point of view. Any critical analysis of the topics addressed is absent.

Since this is an essentially qualitative description of bike sharing systems in China, I found few parts of the research truly original. Furthermore, the paper does not provide clear indications on how to resolve the problems that have emerged.

The problems highlighted in this paper are well known. It might be interesting to compare Chinese bike sharing cases with European ones, not only from a qualitative but also quantitative point of view

The article should provide quantitative solutions to address the problems associated to a bicycle sharing system.

The conclusions are consistent with the description of the state of the art of the development of bicycle sharing systems in China

The references are appropriate for describing the state of the art of the development of bicycle sharing systems in China

Table 1: What type of bicycle is considered? Traditional? Electric bicycle? Both?

Table 2: The average cycling distance is not coherent with the text (lines 415-416). Why?

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

 

We are very grateful for your time and thoughtful feedback on our article entitled “The platformisation of cycling. The development of bicycle sharing systems in China: innovation, urban and social regeneration and sustainability”. Your constructive comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our work, and we have addressed all your concerns accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, while not exceptional in any way, is a good source for researchers and practitioners in its current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

 

We are very grateful for your time and thoughtful feedback on our article entitled “The platformisation of cycling. The development of bicycle sharing systems in China: innovation, urban and social regeneration and sustainability”. Your constructive comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our work, and we have addressed all your concerns accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for their detailed account of the development history of bike-sharing systems in China. My main critique is wrapped around the “what about it" question. What is the novelty and scientific value of this article? Is it merely to tell a story and describe the recent history and current state of affairs, or to offer other scientists the opportunity to find interesting cases within their specialties and engage in real scientific work? While you have laid the groundwork for this purpose, the value of such prepared data is limited - each subsequent scientist will have to delve independently into the context outlined in broad strokes, making it relevant for no one in particular.

 

This text would be more suitable for inclusion in a book or collective monograph on the topic of bicycles, where specific cases from other scientists can be explored within the five topics you proposed. As a standalone article, it is unclear who the target audience is and how this information can be utilized. It lacks the scientific dramaturgy characteristic of the social sciences, presenting facts in a dull and consistent manner. 

So, I suggest either choosing another publication arena for this text, or completely shifting the focus of the text towards elaborating on at least some of the 'five challenges’ (and not suggesting others do this job). 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

 

We are very grateful for your time and thoughtful feedback on our article entitled “The platformisation of cycling. The development of bicycle sharing systems in China: innovation, urban and social regeneration and sustainability”. Your constructive comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our work, and we have addressed all your concerns accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted in the present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' work on the manuscript, particularly on the conclusion, which has been significantly improved. Currently, I somewhat agree with their belief that the paper constitutes "a valuable contribution to the literature on bike-sharing schemes." Although I generally disagree with the framing and scoping of the paper, that is why I chose to remove myself from the discussion by selecting the "accept" box.