The Sustainability and Energy Efficiency of Connected and Automated Vehicles from the Perspective of Public Acceptance towards Platoon Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Sustainability and Energy Efficiency of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: from the Perspective of Public Acceptance towards Platoon Control." It has some value in the scientific community, but some points must be checked.

 observations

Introduction:

 

Repetition and Redundancy: The introduction repeats information about the benefits and challenges of platoon control technology excessively, leading to unnecessary complexity. Simplify the language and streamline the content to avoid redundancy.

 

Unclear Transition to Research Focus: The transition from general background information to the research focus is abrupt, confusing the reader. Improve the flow by providing a smoother transition that signals the shift in focus.

 

Inadequate Citation: Certain statements need proper citations, impacting the credibility of claims. Ensure all key points are supported by references, especially those related to the benefits of platoon control technology.

 

Limited Definition and Explanation: The introduction briefly mentions platoon control technology without providing a clear definition. Enhance reader understanding by offering a more comprehensive explanation of how platoon control operates.

 

Insufficient Attention to Ethical and Societal Concerns: Ethical and societal concerns related to platoon control are briefly mentioned. Dive deeper into these issues to provide a more thorough exploration, including potential job displacement and privacy issues.

 

Assumption of Public Resistance: The introduction assumes public resistance without concrete evidence. Conduct a nuanced exploration supported by empirical studies to substantiate claims about public perception.

 

Limited Global Perspective: Acknowledge the lack of studies from non-Western contexts and clarify how the research aims to address this gap. Provide more details on the study's global perspective and cross-cultural approach.

 

Overemphasis on Economic Benefits: There is a disproportionate focus on economic benefits, neglecting potential drawbacks. Strive for a more balanced discussion that considers both positive and negative aspects.

 

Wordiness and Prolonged Background Information: The introduction is excessively lengthy, with extensive background information. Streamline content to improve readability and maintain reader attention.

 

Lack of Research Gap Identification: While noting the limited focus on platoon control in existing literature, explicitly identify the research gap. Clearly articulate the study's unique contribution to address this gap.

 

Insufficient Detail on Questionnaire Design: The text briefly mentions the questionnaire design but lacks specific details. Enhance transparency by providing a comprehensive explanation, including question construction, potential biases, and methodology.

 

Limited Explanation of Factors Analysis: Introduce more details on the techniques and rationale behind factor analysis. A more precise explanation will aid in understanding the validity and reliability of the results.

 

Complexity in Factor Analysis Representation: Simplify the mathematical representation of factor analysis for better comprehension by readers without a solid statistical background.

 

Lack of Explanation for Factor Naming: Provide rationale or examples for naming the identified factors. This clarification will help readers understand their significance.

 

 Assumption of Significance in Factor Analysis Results: Specify the proportion of variance explained by identified factors and discuss their statistical significance. This information will strengthen the interpretation of the results.

 

Absence of Descriptive Statistics: Include basic descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation) for variables involved in factor analysis. This information will offer a clearer picture of the dataset and its characteristics.

 

Inadequate Explanation of Multiple Regression Analysis: Provide more clarity on why multiple regression analysis was chosen, the hypotheses being tested, and expected outcomes. A more apparent rationale and context will enhance reader understanding.

 

Lack of Mention of Model Assumptions: Introduce the assumptions underlying multiple regression analysis. This information will help readers interpret the validity of the results.

 

To summarize. It is necessary to address these observations to ensure the publication's quality. Consequently, it is recommended that the article be published once these points are thoroughly checked and revised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I mentionned in comments to authors.

Author Response

For the reviewer's reply, please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

For the reviewer's reply, please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What does monthly mileage means? Give its unit for better understanding

 

What are the listed questions that relate these factor “Attitude and Acceptance Factor, Environment and Social Responsibility Factor, Personal Economy and Behavior Factor” Indicate the same in Table 1

 

The questionaries were distributed in which location, city, country, rural or urban etc., must be disclosed

 

Give nomenclature

 

Reference is needed for Eqn 1,

 

Questions 12 to 19 are emotion based. How the number 1 to 5 are arrived?  Why ‘0’was not included?

 

Include future research direction in conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

For the reviewer's reply, please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Second review of

The Acceptance of Public towards Platoon Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles: From a Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Perspective

The authors have taken all my remarks into account except two important methodological points:

1. The participants in the study were a diverse social group, but how was it chosen and how representative is it?

Comment

This is nessesary be clearly described, according to point 1.

2. The participants in the study were selected through a systematic sampling approach to ensure diversity in the social group.  

Comment

This is not an answer to the question How. This is nessesary be clearly described, according to point 2.

Besides these two points (remarks) the manuscript is overloaded with statistic information. However, it is well known that a statistical result without support of a theory is often not reliable. As an example, a correlation is not the same thing as real covariation. This ought to be paid attention to in the article to secure validity and reliability.

 

Summarizing: To keep the necessary quality of the proposal these comments (above) must be considered.  

 

 

Author Response

Please reviewer review the response in the document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nomenclature must be included

Author Response

Please reviewer reviews the response in the document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx