Exploring the Influence of Thai Government Policy Perceptions on Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Measurement Model and Empirical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research analyzed how consumer perceptions impact the intention to use electric vehicles (EVs). The reviewer doesn't have any comments and recommend to accept the paper as is. 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate your recommendation to accept the paper as is. Your recognition of our research on how consumer perceptions impact the intention to use electric vehicles (EVs) is valued. We are pleased that the study's findings and presentation meet the standards for publication without further revisions. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript takes on a very interesting title. However, the work is not suitable for publication in its current form. The manuscript is very difficult to read because there are many sentences written in a very convoluted and incomprehensible way in terms of language, here is an example: "The questionnaire for this study comprised two main parts, both using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)." The work is riddled with numerous grammatical errors. The abstract section is devoid of details regarding the research's years of conduct and the precise five areas the authors focus on in the work's main text. In Section 1. Interlocution, the authors state that the work fills a gap, but they do not refer to any literature. I recommend that the authors clearly articulate the gap the work fills in relation to existing literature and highlight the unique aspects of the work. The methodology section also requires solid refinement. It lacks transparency. I suggest the authors provide a detailed description of the survey's components, the specific questions it asked, the identity of the respondents, and the criteria used to select them for the research. In lines 320–322, the authors state, "To ensure the study's representativeness across Thailand, the survey includes a total of 4000 questionnaires distributed across five major regions of the country (3770 questionnaires remain after cleaning), reflecting the proportionate distribution of EV registrations." At this point, it is necessary to mention these five major regions of the country. The strong point of the work is the very well conducted literature review. To sum up, the work has potential, but requires refinement in terms of transparency for the reader.

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

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides valuable empirical evidence on the role of government policies in promoting EV adoption in Thailand. By quantifying the impact of policy perceptions on behavior intentions, the research can help policymakers and stakeholders better understand which strategies are most effective in accelerating the transition to electric mobility.

However, the study's focus on Thailand may limit its generalizability to other countries with different cultural, economic, and political contexts. Future research could explore how these findings translate across different settings or investigate additional factors, such as social norms and individual values, that might interact with government policies to influence EV adoption.

Here are some specific comments and suggestions

1. The use of advanced statistical methods is commendable, but it would be useful to discuss the limitations of these methods and how they might affect the interpretation of the results. For example, potential issues like multicollinearity or sample bias should be addressed.

2. While the study provides insights into Thai perceptions of government policies, it would be beneficial to conduct comparative studies in other countries to see if similar patterns emerge. This would enhance the generalizability of the findings.

3. Incorporating behavioral economics principles could enrich the study by exploring how cognitive biases and heuristics influence policy perceptions and EV adoption. Understanding these psychological factors could help tailor policies more effectively.

4. The recommendations provided in the study are practical but could benefit from more detailed guidance on how to implement them effectively. For instance, specific strategies for enhancing government commitment visibility and improving financial incentives could be outlined.

5. The study could benefit from a deeper analysis of different consumer segments within Thailand. Understanding the varying needs and preferences of urban versus rural residents, or different income groups, could inform more targeted policy interventions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is relatively clear, coherent, and uses appropriate academic terminology. But Minor editing may be required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although recommendations have improved the manuscript, some elements still require refinement. The authors fail to specify the date, year, or period of the research in both the abstract and the methodology sections. I recommend that the authors include in the abstract the gaps that the research fills. The methodology section still lacks justification for how the researchers selected the respondents.

There are still glaring grammatical errors in the work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still glaring grammatical errors in the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors attempted to evaluate the perceptions of electric vehicle adoption using SEM. The study may potentially make some contribution to the field. Yet, several issues need to be addressed by the authors. 

2. Please circle back to the research questions and literature review to better articulate the contributions of the research.

3. The authors may also need to highlight the recent policy changes in different countries.

4. Please clarify the software used for the analysis and the criteria of the cut-off values with supporting evidence from the literature.

5. In the SEM, is there any controlling variables? Any mediating effects between the variables?

6. To strengthen the discussion, you could: Further analyze the significance of the results (e.g., how does the most influential factor contribute to promoting EV adoption?). Situate your research in the context of this study by comparing your results with previous research.

 

7. More clarity as to the implications for researchers and policymakers is needed.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a very important topic. The work is well designed, but there are elements that require refinement. The authors have planned the manuscript well, which is its strong point because it encourages people to read the work. Another strong point is the manuscript's very attractive title. However, the methodology of the work, particularly in terms of introducing the reader to the authors' research, is a weak point. In this section, I recommend that the authors describe the survey in more detail in the paper's text. The authors mention on line 239: "The questionnaire developed for this study is structured in two main parts, utilizing a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 represents 'strongly disagree' and 7 represents 'strongly agree'." However, this is definitely not enough information. Furthermore, the study lacks information on the selection process of respondents and the conditions they had to meet. The manuscript also lacks a reference to the statistical methods used by the authors in their work. On line 283, the authors mention Cronbach's alpha, but do not describe this method. Throughout the work, there are no formulas used by the authors or their explanations, which are recommended to be supplemented.

The work contains numerous grammatical errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The work contains numerous grammatical errors.