Vehicle-to-Vehicle Energy Trading Framework: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a thorough systematic review on an underrepresented area of research within the literature on bidirectional EV charging - Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) charging). My comments have been grouped as those that are general and apply to the entire paper, and those that are specific and refer to certain sections.
General comments:
Adjectives/adverbs that have been recently identified by researchers as being used more by LLMs (Large Language Models) than the wider body of literature include "meticulously" and "pivotal". As an author I would refrain from using such adjectives/adverbs, especially when they are concentrated in a single abstract.
US English incorrectly used: Replace all instances (e.g. "utilize" with "utilise").
I would recommend a thorough proofread by an English native speaker with a particular focus on the grammar.
Specific comments:
Introduction: The argument/logic given for investigating V2V over V2H/V2G seems a little vague and unconvincing. It isn't strongly supported with references and the logic doesn't really make sense that V2V is a better opportunity when it's actually very nascent like other forms of bidirectional charging (and more suitable for quite different contexts). This section should be made stronger or clearer as to why you are looking at V2V for this paper (lines 45 to 65).
Gap in the knowledge: This "gap in knowledge" section is written more like a summary of the limitations relating to the different methods, rather than where the gap in the knowledge exists in the body of literature. Highlighting the limitations is of course important as is your third research question (and I think this needs its own subsection). But a "gap in the knowledge" section should be about unexplored/underexplored areas. For example, were all the studies theoretical? (Meaning one gap would be real world data). Were all the studies technical or economic? (Meaning another gap would be understanding the social dimensions), ...etc. A framework (e.g. PESTEL) or a summary table could be useful here for identifying which areas have been unexplored/underexplored. This would help you write this section and would also demonstrate a more robust research approach in how the gaps were identified from such an extensive review.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHere, the authors conducted a systematic review of the Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) energy trading framework. This paper meticulously analyzed its structure, employed methodologies, encountered challenges, and potential directions for future research.
After reading through the manuscript, I believe this manuscript worth publication. However, some minor revisions need to be further address before publication.
1. The figure 1, process of this literature review, is not necessary to be addressed in a figure. This is typical process for a literature review. A brief description is sufficient.
2. The key topic of this review is V2V energy trading framework, not how to draft a literature review. The authors have spent too many pages indicating how to write a literature review, which is less relevant to the topic. It is suggested either remove this information or shorten them.
3. Introducing key challenges of V2V from the amount of literature viewpoint is not straightforward. It is better directly pointing out the significance of addressing these challenges, either from the scientific, engineering or other viewpoints with logic.
4. Diverse sources for electricity, such as waste heat recovery using thermoelectric (10.1039/d3ee02370b), is also the reason for using EVs as alternatives for traditional vehicles, which should be introduced at the very beginning.
4. To me, Table A1 is not so necessary as it is not straightly related with V2V energy trading, the topic. It is just a summary of the topic of all references.
5. The reason contributing to the ‘adoption of EVs’ should be unsecured access to fossil fuels, instead of ’secure access to fossil fuels’.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper conducts a systematic review of the Vehicle-to-Vehicle energy trading framework，analyzing its structure, employing methodologies, encountering challenges, and potential directions for future research. In order to further improve the content of the article, the following suggestions can be referred to:
1. It is recommended that the authors cite the literature in order.
2、It is recommended that the authors, after the first pair of defining all technical terms and acronyms, the following recommendations are unified into acronyms.
3, the article considers the vehicle-to-vehicle energy trading box, contains literature content did not research from the specific mathematical model, I hope that the authors can take this content into account in the current study, specific reference can be made to DOI:10.17775/CSEEJPES.2021.04510.
4、The format of the references in the article has some content spacing inconsistency, and it is suggested that the authors make modifications.
5、The article considers the vehicle-to-vehicle transaction problem, and it is suggested that the authors consider using the Nash bargaining model to deal with the transaction problem, which can be referred to DOI:org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123275.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for sufficiently responding to the reviewer comments.
I would recommend further proof reading as I detected a number of spelling mistakes in the newly added text.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThank you to the authors for sufficiently responding to the reviewer comments.
I would recommend further proof reading as I detected a number of spelling mistakes in the newly added text.
