A Quantitative Study on Factors Influencing User Satisfaction of Micro-Mobility in China in the Post-Sharing Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "A Quantitative Study on Factors Influencing User Satisfaction of Micro-mobility in China in the Post-sharing Era," appears to be a comprehensive and detailed academic work. 

Research Objective and Novelty:

The study aims to explore factors influencing user satisfaction in the context of shared micro-mobility in China's post-sharing era. This topic seems relevant and timely, considering the growing importance of sustainable urban transportation and the popularity of micro-mobility solutions. But the novelty aspect could be better highlighted if the paper specifically addressed gaps in existing research. The literature review should not only summarize but also critically analyze existing research, identifying gaps and justifying the current research.

Methodology, Data Collection and Analysis:

The paper details a rigorous methodology, data collection process, gathering reviews from various app platforms and social media, followed by preprocessing and analysis using LDA and SEM. 

Results and Discussion:

The paper identifies key factors affecting user satisfaction and discusses their implications in the context of urban transportation and shared micro-mobility. The findings are relevant for both academic research and practical application in the industry.

Overall, the paper demonstrates a good level of academic quality, with a well-defined research objective, rigorous methodology, comprehensive data analysis, and relevant findings. It seems to contribute valuable insights to the field of urban transportation and shared micro-mobility.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title presents < A Quantitative Study on Factors Influencing User Satisfaction3 of Micro-mobility in China in the Post-sharingEra>. The study utilizes two separate approaches, namely LDA and SEM. Nevertheless, any of sentence in the abstract and body did not provide clear valid explanation or reason for the authors' utilization of two methodologies for the study. The reader is left perplexed and inquisitive on the true subject matter of this study. I propose rewriting the abstract and body in a manner that clearly demonstrates what was examined and how it was examined, thereby providing a clearer depiction.

 The problem statement of the study is not clear. ideally, one would expect to see a well-grounded problem being addressed in a study that attempted to understand the composition of users’ perceived value and satisfaction factors about shared micro-mobility. Furthermore, such a problem statement should be substantiated with a comparative analysis of the previous study. this is largely missing in this study.

The study might argue that Table format addresses this point in terms of the previous study findings, research methods, the type of research environments and so on. However, the analysis and comments given in line 73-94 failed to provide a comparison of the previous studies, and how the current study outperforms existing studies. In the same manner, the literature review section can be significantly improved.

Related to Table 1 and Table 2, any issues with translation between Chinese and English? In other words, the English word 'protect' possibly means multiple meanings of a Chinese word, and it cannot be the same meaning of 'protect in English. You must be able to present a comprehensive and meticulous explanation of the data collecting and analysis procedures, including all relevant steps and challenges.

In the majority of the section, I perceive it to be mostly a summary or enumeration of the study's findings. However, several sentences, such as those found in lines 581-588, appear to be lacking in clarity and precision. You must establish the profound implications for the contribution in both academic and practical domains. To rephrase, the discussion is excessively descriptive, meaning it primarily focuses on providing a summary of the findings. A number of sentences within this section (lines 581-588), including those that describe the reason or objective of the study, would be more appropriately placed in the introduction section to enhance the development of the argument. Next, in the discussion and conclusion, the authors should reflect upon the theoretical and practical implications; this way the findings will be put in broader context as well as reflect more deeply on the limitations. For instance, the authors should include further details on how their findings either confirm or question established theories or models regarding a notable advancement in understanding the behavior and psychology of consumers of shared micro-mobility services. Additionally, they might explore how this conceptual model can leverage these insights to enhance user satisfaction and experience in certain ways, hence benefitting specific fields.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studied the factors influencing user satisfaction of micro-mobility used survey data. The authors did a lot of work. The paper used several data sources and methods, which makes me confused. How to fuse these data? It seems these data are independent. I suggest the authors to add an illustration of paper framework. Another question is what’s your innovation idea and results? The author used several traditional models in your paper. I hope the authors clarify them in your paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job in revising the manuscript in line with the concerns of the reviewers. Nevertheless, the manuscript requires further minor revisions before becoming acceptable for publication: I thought the paper addresses an interesting and important research question.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript according to my concerns, I have no more comment.