Evaluation of the Development Level of Green Transportation in National Central Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal Name: Sustainability
Manuscript Id: sustainability-3137191
Manuscript Title: Evaluation of the Development Level of Green Transportation in National Central Cities
Here, a model is evaluated for green transportation in National Central Cities. The authors considers several assumptions which looks irrational and illogical. The theoretical background, represented here are quite impracticable and there are limited contribution of the paper. On the basis of my observations, which are provided below, the manuscript is recommended for major revision.
1. There are several typos, grammatical mistake and sentence error in the paper. Correct them with extensive care.
2. The Abstract and Conclusion should highlight the main data conclusions in the paper.
3. The introduction is too brief, making it difficult for readers to understand the main work and contributions of this paper. Additionally, the Introduction is not well-structured.
4. Strengthen the related literature/background according to the focus. Also, the literature gap you are addressing with your research (and how it relates to existing literature) can be strengthened.
5. Briefly summarize the content of the manuscript.
6. Why do the authors consider Entropy Weight method?
7. Why TOPSIS is considered here.
8. The authors used Entropy Weight method, what about the hypersensitivity of significance to the entropy values of various data.
9. Are the rank discrimination and zero values included to the method? If not then, the outcome can be inaccurate.
10. Solution methodology should be supported by literature.
11. Table 2, 3 and 4 need more clarification for the outcomes.
12. Section 5.2.2 need to be summarized, otherwise, reader can lose interest to find the actual meaning of the section.
13. In my opinion, the Conclusion section should be extended. I suggest giving some managerial insights and applicability of the present model for the readers. Additionally, future extensions of the model should be more thoroughly addressed.
14. Illustrate what are the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Journal Name: Sustainability
Manuscript Id: sustainability-3137191
Manuscript Title: Evaluation of the Development Level of Green Transportation in National Central Cities
Here, a model is evaluated for green transportation in National Central Cities. The authors considers several assumptions which looks irrational and illogical. The theoretical background, represented here are quite impracticable and there are limited contribution of the paper. On the basis of my observations, which are provided below, the manuscript is recommended for major revision.
1. There are several typos, grammatical mistake and sentence error in the paper. Correct them with extensive care.
2. The Abstract and Conclusion should highlight the main data conclusions in the paper.
3. The introduction is too brief, making it difficult for readers to understand the main work and contributions of this paper. Additionally, the Introduction is not well-structured.
4. Strengthen the related literature/background according to the focus. Also, the literature gap you are addressing with your research (and how it relates to existing literature) can be strengthened.
5. Briefly summarize the content of the manuscript.
6. Why do the authors consider Entropy Weight method?
7. Why TOPSIS is considered here.
8. The authors used Entropy Weight method, what about the hypersensitivity of significance to the entropy values of various data.
9. Are the rank discrimination and zero values included to the method? If not then, the outcome can be inaccurate.
10. Solution methodology should be supported by literature.
11. Table 2, 3 and 4 need more clarification for the outcomes.
12. Section 5.2.2 need to be summarized, otherwise, reader can lose interest to find the actual meaning of the section.
13. In my opinion, the Conclusion section should be extended. I suggest giving some managerial insights and applicability of the present model for the readers. Additionally, future extensions of the model should be more thoroughly addressed.
14. Illustrate what are the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigates and evaluates the development of green transportation. It is well written and organized. My comments are listed as follows:
1. The indicators utilized in this study to evaluate the system should be discussed more. It is not clear (1) how to select these indicators; (2) how to obtain these indicators from real-world datasets; (3) Is there any correlation or causality among these indicators? Basic statistic descriptions regarding these indicators should be provided. (4) It seems that indicators are characterized according to different categories. Do indicators from different categories equally contribute the evaluation?
2. In Section 6.2 suggestion, the insights on policy decision making can be improved further. The suggestions listed in the current manuscript are too general and it is hard to follow the details of these policies. Authors can summarize these suggestions into a table to make it easy to follow.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal Name: Sustainability
Manuscript Id: sustainability-3137191-peer-review-v2
Manuscript Title: Evaluation of the Development Level of Green Transportation in National Central Cities
The authors has implemented all the comments successfully, so, the manuscript is accepted in its present form.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
