Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent paper which, in my opinion, clearly deserves publication. Its main topic is the phenomenology of hitchhiking, and the paper contains many sociological descriptions, on several different levels – micro-, meso-, and macro- – of the field.  It incorporates many first-person accounts of the issue, as well as literary examples, which make this manuscript very enjoyable to read, and its main points easy to catch.

This paper emphasizes the ecological relevance and implications of hitchhiking also, and has many points and trains of thought that relate to the criticism of current state of capitalism. It highlights the role of hitchhiking in forming stronger and more coherent communities. If I got right, the author considers hitchhiking – and supporting of hitchhiking – part of the solution to our current ecological crisis.

It is a substantial, fruitful, and informative contribution to the related ongoing debates. However, I believe that it could be improved at certain points.

1) The leading clue and methodological basis of the paper is “phenomenology”. However, the author does not clarify entirely that what does s/he exactly mean by the term. I would think of the philosophical movement started by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) and his followers. However, there is no reference to classic authors of phenomenological philosophy – such as Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and others.

In this way the methodological basis of the manuscript remains a little uncertain, at least in my opinion.

2) Page four: “From a seasoned hitchhiker’s point of view, this suggests that although we might make apriori assumptions that human beings are capable of mutual aid and cooperation”

I would have elaborated more on that. What should we mean here by “apriori”? Is it something that Husserl means when he says, that experience as such has certain apriori necessary features?

3) Page 10: “since Bentham believd” à believed.

4) I really liked the analysis on Engels. However, I think that the transition from Engels and hitchhiking is too rapid. I would have worked on that a little more.

The last two chapters should have been connected to the main train of thought of the paper more tightly or strongly. I felt that the last two chapters – I mean, “Taking Marx & Engels Up the M1”, and “Non-human Hitchers and Necro-politics” – were not connected very closely to the earlier trains of thought.

But it is a good article, and by all means I recommend it for publication.

 

The reviewer

Author Response

See Cover letter

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached PDF. I really liked the paper, very thought provoking,  including beyond the scope of the paper's focus on the haptic.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

See cover letter of resubmitted version

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides an engaging exploration of the phenomenological and cultural aspects of hitchhiking. The authors draw on their own extensive experiences as hitchhikers, as well as a wide range of literary, artistic, and academic sources, to examine hitchhiking as a unique form of travel and social interaction. However, it is non-linear, and therefore, some of the structure, I might expect to see in other social science journals is not here.

The paper skilfully weaves together insights from sociology, anthropology, philosophy, literature, and art to create a multifaceted analysis of hitchhiking. The movie reference is a little old, but still holds through given the nature of hitchhiking. The use of duo-autoethnography allows the authors to blend personal experiences with scholarly analysis in an engaging way. The paper introduces intriguing ideas like "haptic knowledge," "hitching time," and hitchhiking as a form of "sous-veillance." While I am always a little sceptical   about new phrases, generally the phrases are explained and work. The authors successfully connect hitchhiking to broader issues of environmentalism, social trust, and alternative modes of travel in the 21st century.

The paper is well-written and accessible, with vivid descriptions and thoughtful reflections that bring the hitchhiking experience to life. However, sentence can be worthy, and often it took 2-3 reads before full meaning became apparent.  At times, therefore, the meanders and loses focus, potentially diluting its main arguments. Some sections, like the extended discussion of hitchBOT, feel tangential. It was very much a once off/ and not sure it is representative of anything solid…. Might be worth looking as to its worth / contribution to the paper/ any whether something more solid can replace it. The paper's organization is somewhat loose and nonlinear, which can make it difficult to follow the main thread of the argument. Worth looking a headings/  introducing some more sub-headings.

 

While the authors draw on their personal experiences, the paper could benefit from more systematic empirical research on contemporary hitchhiking practices. The paper sometimes veers towards romanticizing hitchhiking, potentially overlooking its real dangers, risks and limitations. These should be embedded – e.g highway of tears in Canada etc.  The paper would benefit from a clearer overall structure, with more explicit signposting of its main arguments and how different sections relate to each other. While the historical and cultural analysis is rich, the paper could include more current data on hitchhiking practices and attitudes, from current empirical research. The authors could more explicitly address potential criticisms of hitchhiking (e.g., safety concerns, unreliability) and how these might be addressed. Need some indication as to whether the practice is increasing/ declining – reasons etc

 

While the paper touches on many theoretical concepts, it could benefit from a more explicit overarching theoretical framework to tie its various insights together. Some sections could be tightened or shortened to improve the overall flow and impact of the paper.

Overall, this is an innovative and thought-provoking paper that makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of hitchhiking as a cultural practice and form of alternative mobility. Its blend of personal experience, cultural analysis, and theoretical reflection offers rich insights into the phenomenology of travel and human interaction.  The paper's strengths lie in its interdisciplinary approach, vivid writing, and ability to connect hitchhiking to broader cultural and philosophical issues. It effectively challenges readers to reconsider their assumptions about travel, trust, and human connection in an age of environmental crisis and technological change. Additionally, while the authors' personal experiences add valuable depth to the analysis, the paper could benefit from a broader range of contemporary voices and experiences to ground its claims about hitchhiking’ s current cultural significance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no issues with language per se - With some tightening of structure and focus, it could be an even more impactful/ avoid over long sentence.  A little more structure and better use of headings would improve readability. 

Author Response

See cover letter of resubmitted version

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please correct the paper that it adheres to the standard academic structure: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.  When you do so you'll see that methodology needs to be expanded, and results reorganized and added. 

 

expand the methodology 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is correct.

Author Response

See cover letter with resubmitted version 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf