Analysis of Regulation of Costs for Operating Buses in a Transport Company

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

 

The paper "Analysis of regulation of costs for operating buses in a transport company" provides a well-structured analysis of the cost structure for operating different Russian bus models.

This research offers valuable insights for market regulators seeking to regulate bus operator costs effectively. The study itself is a high-quality, practical piece of work. It's surprising, however, that judging by the "Funding" statement, no gorvernment regulatory body sponsored this research.

While the analysis is sound, the paper's contribution to scientific knowledge is definitely too low for a journal with an impact factor of 3.9.  Papers quoted in the “Literature Review” section are effectively very distant from the main topic, so little discussion with global literature has been undetaken. Additionally, the focus on outdated diesel buses from local manufacturers suggests the study should be published in a local journal or maybe by one of the emerging journals, such as MDPI Businesses.

Before resubmitting the paper, proofreading is essential to ensure a polished presentation. 

Finally, it's worth noting the absence of any funding mentioned in the paper. If applicable, the authors could consider revising the manuscript to acknowledge any relevant funding sources.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We express our deepest gratitude to you for your comments. We have tried to make changes to the manuscript to their satisfaction. We would like to inform you that our research is aimed at developing countries, where there are still a lot of rather old diesel buses. We also added significantly more references and made changes to the structure of the manuscript. We also made other corrections to the text of the manuscript. We would also like to assure you that our research was not funded by the government. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic discussed in this article is interesting and important from many perspectives, however, the manuscript in its current form contains several errors and shortcomings - listed below - which should be taken into account before possible publication.

1. The abstract should be improved and requires some rewording. It contained repeated phrases, e.g. lines 16-17: "The dependences of resource consumption indicators on changes in influencing factors have been established, including: ", and then the following lines: "the indicators of resource consumption from changes in influencing factors have been established, including: " - which makes the entire text unintelligible. In addition, the abstract should include examples of the results obtained by the authors.

2. Originality and novelty have been correctly indicated by the authors, but I have doubts about the text contained in lines 48-65 - do the authors research all passenger transport in the world? Because that's what the information presented in these lines shows.

3.  Please specify precisely which companies were taken into account by the authors of "The data were collected for 20 road transport companies transporting passengers and operating a medium-sized (up to 100 units) bus fleet." - were they European companies? Non-European? From one country? From one region?

4. Table 1 - what do the dashes in the "The significance of the factor" column mean? Are these factors excluded from the analysis?

And are all the factors mentioned in table 1 mentioned in lines 212-214 "The analysis of scientific literature and practical experience made it possible to establish a complex of factors affecting the volume of consumption of material resources when transporting passengers by road "?

5. Subsection 3.2 presents the results of the conducted research, so it should not be included in the section titled "Materials and Methods".

6. I don't really understand why some of the results are in section 3 and some in section 4? What is included in section 4 is a case study, which also does not specify why a particular bus model was chosen for analysis.

7. There is no discussion of the results obtained and their comparison to the results obtained by other researchers.

8. References should be more current - 17 out of 50 were published more than 10 years ago.

9. Please carefully review the entire text and correct any punctuation, editing or typo errors, as well as remove unnecessary repetitions (e.g. line 176, etc.).

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Please check attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study analyzes the regulatory cost for operating buses in a transport company. This study analyzes empirical data, but I have some concerns which need to be addressed, especially the generalizability of the study and its data used.

• The abstract should be revised and improved in terms of objectives, and the sentences should be logically correct. Add the data description, check spelling mistakes, and arrange it orderly.
• The contribution part in the introduction should be revised.
• There is a missing layout of the paper part in the introduction.
• The authors need to provide a short summary of existing methodologies before the objective of the study and identify what this study is going to fill, which will help the reader.
• In the method section, there is a need to provide a flow chart which shows the steps to clearly articulate the study method.
• Remove the statistical term in line 176. it is twice.
• In the methodology, on what basis did you mark high, medium, and low factors? What is the condition? It should be clearly stated in this section.
• Is the study only analyzing the 8 types of bus data in Table 2?
• Provide the data references or website from where fuels and lubricants are collected.
• What is the unit of the route section and average unit in Table 2?
• Did you include depreciation and other factors in tire calculation lines 403-409?
• Improve all the figures and provide the statistical regression models in the method and their mathematical equations and calculation of R².
• Whether this calculated method is generalized to other areas as well, because you have selected from your own country.
• Keep the unit same, either 44.4 thousand or 44,400 km.
• Lines 441 to 446: From where did you use the lubricant consumption? Is it international regulation or the author calculated for this study for a specific area? Because the bus models and the road condition, and surface could also affect the consumption of fuels and lubricants, which needs to clearly state that another country can generalize this method.
• The proposed results in figures seem good and close to the Ministry of Transport results, but there is a need to explain the practical implication of this study.
• The conclusion needs to be concise and make it as succinct as possible and keep the scientific manuscript format. State the study objective, data method, main findings, and summary of main results, and finally provide limitations and recommendations of the study.
• Use the term "researcher" instead of "scientist" in the manuscript and also use "this paper" or "study" instead of "authors."
• Explain the full terms of M2 and M3.
• In tables, use decimal points instead of commas.

I have found many grammatical errors in the abstract, introduction, and other sections as well, like lines 14, 33, 77, 111, 176, 227, 242, etc. Please check the  grammar and fix it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have found many grammatical errors in the abstract, introduction, and other sections as well, like lines 14, 33, 77, 111, 176, 227, 242, etc. Please check the  grammar and fix it.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Please check attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is relevant to the field of transportation economics and addresses a significant issue concerning cost management and tariff formulation for urban bus services. Compared to other published material, this manuscript adds significant value by proposing a methodological approach for standardising resource consumption and operating costs. The originality of this manuscript lies in its approach to Standardising the consumption of material resources based on individual operating conditions and various influencing factors. The research addresses a specific gap in the field related to the lack of reliable and practical cost management strategies tailored to the unique conditions of bus transport operations in developing countries. This gap is critical as it affects the profitability and sustainability of transport companies and their affordability of public transportation.

While the manuscript is thorough and provides valuable insights, certain areas require further refinement to enhance the clarity and overall impact of the research.

- Strengthen the abstract and introduction by clearly stating the research question, objectives, and significance of the study.

- While the methodology is generally sound, ensure that all statistical analyses are adequately described and supported by relevant data.

- The conclusions drawn are generally consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Ensure that all the main questions posed in the introduction are addressed in the discussion, and supported by specific experiments or data analyses.

- Expand the discussion section to include a more detailed comparison of the findings with existing literature and to highlight the practical implications of the research. 

- Include an additional section after the conclusion of the paper that addresses the limitations of the current study and offers suggestions for future research.

- The references are appropriate and relevant to the study. However, it would be beneficial to include more recent studies that have addressed similar issues or used similar methodologies to provide a more comprehensive context for the research.

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your
comments. We have tried to improve our manuscript according to your comments.
Comments 1: Strengthen the abstract and introduction by clearly stating the research question,
objectives, and significance of the study.
Response 1: We have significantly expanded the abstract. In the new version, we tried to
more clearly substantiate the research objectives and relevance.
Comments 2: While the methodology is generally sound, ensure that all statistical analyses are
adequately described and supported by relevant data.
Response 2: We have once again checked our data and calculations and confirm their
reliability
Comments 3: The conclusions drawn are generally consistent with the evidence and arguments
presented. Ensure that all the main questions posed in the introduction are addressed in the
discussion, and supported by specific experiments or data analyses.
Include an additional section after the conclusion of the paper that addresses the limitations ofthe
current study and offers suggestions for future research.
Response 3: We have significantly expanded the conclusion, highlighting key aspects of the
study
Comments 4: The references are appropriate and relevant to the study. However, it would be
beneficial toinclude more recent studies that have addressed similar issues or used similar
methodologies toprovide a more comprehensive context for the research.
Response 3: We checked the references again and analyzed the literature sources. We tried to
make improvements

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I stand by my previous opinion, that this paper offers a valuable local case study. However, for a high-impact journal (3.9 IF) with a broader audience, the contribution to scientific knowledge might need further elaboration. Perhaps targeting a more specialized journal focused on local case studies within this field could be a good fit. Additionally, the conclusions section could benefit from a stronger emphasis on the broader implications of the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
We highly value your opinion and comments. Overall, we are convinced that our research
will be of interest to specialists from developing countries. The magazine "Sustainability" is
an excellent publication, which is read precisely by specialists from developing countries.
Comments 1: the conclusions section could benefit from a stronger emphasis on the broader
implications of the findings.
Response 1: We have significantly expanded the conclusion, highlighting the most
significant aspects of our research

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My main comment regarding the coverletter provided by the authors - it was difficult for me to check what the authors improved and what not, because they did not refer or respond to my specific comments and only wrote general answers.

But analyzing the text of the manuscript, I still have a few comments:

1. As I wrote earlier - the abstract should include examples of the results obtained by the authors - this was not included, still there are only some general statements.

2. The discussion of the results still lacks any reference to the research of other authors.

3. The Conclusions section does not refer to individual research problems formulated earlier in the text of the work.

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your
comments and tried to edit our manuscript as fully as possible.
Comments 1: As I wrote earlier - the abstract should include examples of the results obtained by
the authors- this was not included, still there are only some general statements.
Response 1: We have significantly expanded the abstract. In the new version, we tried to
more clearly substantiate the research objectives and relevance.
Comments 2: The discussion of the results still lacks any reference to the research of other
authors.
Response 2: In the discussion, we discussed what has been achieved with our approach
and what value it provides for transport companies in our opinion
Comments 3: The Conclusions section does not refer to individual research problems formulated
earlier inthe text of the work.
Response 3: We have significantly expanded the conclusion, highlighting key aspects of the
study

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed most of my comments, and I appreciate the effort they have made, but the following points should be sorted out to improve the quality of the manuscript: The abstract still has issues and should clearly fix the approach adopted by this study, and also add its efficacy in one sentence. It is too general, and I am still not convinced it is not scientifically sound. It is my suggestion to revise it carefully. I suggest taking some main key points from the contributions and highlighting them in the abstract and conclusion. The conclusion should discuss the limitations and future recommendations as well.In my previous comments, I mentioned that it would be better to illustrate the method workflow with a flowchart, if possible.I noticed many English grammar errors, which are extensive. The authors need to write scientifically to maintain flow and coherence among sentences, and there is a need to improve the language style. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I noticed many English grammar errors, which are extensive. The authors need to write scientifically to maintain flow and coherence among sentences, and there is a need to improve the language style.

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are grateful for your
comments, which helped us improve our manuscript.
Comments 1: Theabstract still has issues and should clearly fix the approach adopted by this
study, and also addits efficacy in one sentence. It is too general, and I am still not convinced it is not
scientificallysound. It is my suggestion to revise it carefully. I suggest taking some main key points
from thecontributions and highlighting them in the abstract and conclusion.
Response 1: We have significantly expanded the abstract. In the new version, we tried to more
clearly substantiate the research objectives and relevance. We have significantly expanded the
conclusion, highlighting key aspects of the study
Comments 2: I mentioned that it would be better to illustrate the method workflow with a flowchart,
Response 2: We have added a flowchart of the study (Figure 1)

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I stand by my previous opinion, that this paper offers a valuable local case study. However, for a high-impact journal (3.9 IF) with a broader audience, the contribution to scientific knowledge might need further elaboration. Perhaps targeting a more specialized journal focused on local case studies within this field could be a good fit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We have great respect for your opinion and appreciate your comments, which allowed us to improve our article. As for the general assessment of our research, we beg to differ.

We analyzed publications in the journal Sustainability. Very little attention has been paid to cost analysis of public transport. There were practically no publications in the journal “Sustainability”.

However, those articles that were published in the journal aroused great interest.

For example,

The Analysis of the Effects of a Fare Free Public Transport Travel Demand Based on E-Ticketing

 

Identifying Critical Factors Influencing the Rents of Public Rental Housing Delivery by PPPs: The Case of Nanjing

 

Rzeszow as a City Taking Steps Towards Developing Sustainable Public Transport

 

Sustainability of Public Transportation: An Examination of User Behavior to Real-Time GPS Tracking Application

 

Public Transport Prioritization and Descriptive Criteria-Based Urban Sections Classification on Arterial Streets

 

Moreover, all these studies are based on local local examples. And yet, these studies are in demand, judging by the statistics.

I would also like to note that, in general, there are currently relatively few studies devoted to the analysis of public transport costs. Because in the USA and the EU, public transport is not a priority, and in developing countries there are still quite a few researchers on this problem. Thus, our study fills this gap and is relevant.