Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

A new energy logistics vehicle-friendly user service system in order to provide a better development direction for new energy logistics vehicles. Through questionnaires, core user characteristics, user interviews, user journey maps, qualitative analysis, and coding of user interview data based on rooting theory, this paper identifies the pain points of users of new energy logistics vehicles. The research findings can serve as a resource for entrepreneurs, service providers, managers, and designers of new energy logistics vehicles.

My comments are as follows:

1- English proofreading is necessary. There are several instances, throughout the paper, which need reformulation or correction.

2-  What does mean, "The respondents in this thesis possess..." (Line 166) or "...map are illustrated in this thesis..." (Line 228), are used in your article? Does it mean you are presenting your diploma thesis results in this article? It is not allowed ethically.

3- Your conclusion section should be concise and to the point. Conclusions that are too lengthy often have unnecessary information in them. The conclusion is not the place for details about your methodology or results. Please rewrite the conclusion section.

4-  Figures (B.1 and B.2) have low resolution and cannot be read.

5- In this survey, 160 questionnaires were distributed, and the recovery rate of 88%. Did you think 140 (valid questionnaires) questionnaires are enough to systematically investigate, analyze, and summarize the main points and needs of new energy logistics vehicle users?

6-  Did you try to compare your results with previous studies?

7- Explain more about the research process in the main text using Figure 1 and show these parts in Figure 1.

8-  Revise Figures 2, and 3, which have low resolution.

Author Response

亲爱的审稿人 1，

非常感谢您的点评，每一条建议对我们都非常有帮助，我们已经在pdf中一一回复了。

如果您对本作品有任何疑问，请再次联系我们。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This paper examines the elements of user service assurance for electric mini-van logistics vehicles with a novel intention and the research content is of some relevance. The paper uses the four elements of service design16 and grounding theory to construct a service model that articulates the main user assurance criteria for pure electric minivan logistics vehicles, and the overall content is logical. There are still some errors in format and content that need to be revised.
1. The introduction section could be appropriately streamlined to highlight what has been done and the value of this paper after citing some of the current problems.
2. the number of respondents in this paper is not too small, and the conclusions drawn are not convincing and generalizable.
3. it is suggested that the colour scheme of Figure 3 be adjusted to be more vivid and to highlight each element.
4. Some of the references cited in this paper are a bit old, so it is recommended that more references be made to the literature of the last five years. If this is a formatting error, please correct it.
I would suggest that this article be accepted with minor amendments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your review, every suggestion is very helpful to us, we have replied to you one by one in the pdf.

If you have any questions regarding this work, please contact us again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you very much for the corrections; they improved the quality of the paper significantly. Based on the new version, I still have several comments. Unfortunately, I have to consider that a major revision is needed again because of the following reasons:

·       After the revision, the term "electric minivan logistics vehicles" is used in the whole paper, including the title, but this is still not a good term; it is unnecessarily complicated, and the "logistics vehicle" term is not the correct term at all for me in English, "vehicles for logistics purposes" or "freight vehicles" are the good terms for them. Instead of "electric minivan logistics vehicles", "electric minivans" and/or "electric minivans for logistics purposes" should be used.

·       Similarly, the term "traditional fuel minivan logistics vehicles" is not one as well; instead of it, for example, "traditional fuel-powered minivans" should be used.

·       In Appendix B, it is still impossible to read the text on figures in the pdf version (the size became bigger after the revision, but this didn't help enough); it should be completely re-edited to make it possible for everyone to read the contents of the figures.

·       In the abstract: the three sentences between lines 12 and 18 are not correct; it is difficult to understand them ("Using questionnaires, core user characteristics, user interviews, and user journey maps, a pilot study of user service guarantees for pure electric minivan logistics vehicles is conducted, and the user requirements for pure electric minivan logistics vehicles are identified. Utilizing NVivo to do qualitative analysis and coding on user interview data. Construct a service model using the four elements of service design and grounded theory to elucidate the primary user assurance criteria for pure electric minivan logistics vehicles.". It would be better to rewrite them, for example like, "We are using…", "Then we are utilizing…", "We are constructing…" or "To construct…". In its current form, it is very hard to understand it.

Additionally, I have several comments and suggestions regarding the minor problems of the paper:

 ·       The name of Table 4, "Comparison of user usage" should be changed; based on this title, it is hard to understand the content of the table.

·       Lines 399 and 400 are blank lines; please, remove them.

·       In line 157: "This research use…" should be changed to "This research is using…" or to "This research uses…"

·       Within sections 3.2.1., 4.1.1., 4.1.2. you shouldn't use bullet points (for example, at "• Questionnaire", they should be separated into subsections or simply highlighted by bald letters within the text. Please, change them.

·       In Appendix A, the question mark is missing at "Which way do you want to use pure electric logistics vehicles".

·       In the text, "the" is still missing before several nouns; it was corrected at several points, but this must be checked and corrected again in the whole paper.

 

·       In lines 93 and 101, at the double references, the comma is in the incorrect position; instead of "[15 ,16]", it should be "[15, 16]", and similarly, at "[17 ,18]", it should be "[17, 18] instead; please, check this everywhere in the paper and correct it again, as I see, they are consequently incorrect in the whole paper (previously, they were changed for example from [15,16] to [15 ,16], but none of these is correct).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your review, every suggestion is very helpful to us, we have replied to you one by one in the pdf.

If you have any questions regarding this work, please contact us again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I accept all the explanations and corrections but the one expressed in the Point 1 related to objective/aim/purpose of the research and article. In the corrected paragraphs there are two sentence stating "This research focuses..." (line 11) and "This research proposes..." (line 53), however "focus" or "propose" is not the same as aim, object or purpose, ...so  there is still no sentence stating what is the aim/objective/purpose of the research and article, while it should be.

After my recommendation not to make reader confused there are still three sentences on the research purpose, which are not consistent (their meanings are not the same).  They are:

"This research proposes, from the perspective of the four elements of service design, the components of a user service system for pure electric minivan logistics vehicles." (line 53)

"This research proposes the user service guarantee system of pure electric minivan logistics vehicles from the perspective of four elements of service design." (line 63)

"This research proposed a service model based on the four elements of design, with user guarantee as the central focus." (line 315)

I am also afraid the following sentences are not correct in English: "Utilizing NVivo to do qualitative analysis and coding on user interview data." and  "Construct a service model using the four elements of service design and grounded theory to elucidate the primary user assurance criteria for pure electric minivan logistics vehicles." (lines 15-17)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you very much for your review, every suggestion is very helpful to us, we have replied to you one by one in the pdf.

If you have any questions regarding this work, please contact us again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Most of the comments have been addressed I suggest accepting the paper after the proofreading is performed 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Authors, thank you very much for your corrections; I suggest accepting your paper in its present form.

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

The authors proposed a new energy logistics vehicle-friendly user service system in order to provide a better development direction for new energy logistics vehicles. Through questionnaires, core user characteristics, user interviews, user journey maps, qualitative analysis, and coding of user interview data based on rooting theory, this paper identifies the pain points of users of new energy logistics vehicles.

The research findings can serve as a resource for entrepreneurs, service providers, managers, and designers of new energy logistics vehicles.

My comments are as follows:

1-    English proofreading is a must. There are several instances, throughout the paper, which need reformulation or correction.

2-      Every figure and table should have a caption, please revise all figures and tables.

3-      The resolution of the figures is low, which gets blurred when zoomed in.

4-      The authors need to restructure the section of the Methodology and explain more about the Methodology idea used in this paper.

5-  Your conclusion section should be concise and to the point. Conclusions that are too lengthy often have unnecessary information in them. The conclusion is not the place for details about your methodology or results. Please rewrite the conclusion section.

6-      Why you are using ''This thesis...'' in the present work?

Line 144, Line 146, Line 150, Line 161, Line 164, Line 87, Line 226, and Line 245.

7-      Explain more about table -7 in the main text.

 

8-      In this survey, a total of 130 questionnaires were distributed, and the recovery rate of 88%. Did you think 115 questionnaires are enough to systematically investigate, analyze, and summarize the main points and needs of new energy logistics vehicle users? Did you try to compare your results with previous studies?

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The pictures in figures 1, 2, and 5 are not together with the title of the figures; Are figures 3 and 4 upside down, the two figures are completely unclear, and I do not understand what they mean.

2. The Table 1 and 3 span two pages; Why should you introduce figure 7 first and then figure 6 when expressing in the text? Is the Arabic numeral 7 in front of the 6?

3. Regarding the research process in the thesis, the content of the questionnaires of the two kind car owners seems to be inconsistent, whether the expression method can be changed.

4. The first part of the questionnaire is what questions and aspects are used to ask the new energy logistics vehicle owners' demand for service safety, which should be explained in detail

5. In the text "35 interviewees aged between 26 and 35 years old, 36 and 45 years old, 46 and 55 years old, and 56 and 65 years old were interviewed individually." What does this sentence mean and what does it mean?

6. In the table 2, the proportion of all interviewed car owners should not be calculated. It should be calculated according to their corresponding vehicle types. The proportion of the interviewed users of the two types of vehicles should be the same in the same age group or have data to prove that the choice is now The proportion of users’ age matches the corresponding proportion of the entire vehicle group.

7. Why both 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 have user core features, and what is the difference between the two?

8. Does the content of the third row of Table 4 correspond to "after using"? What does it mean?

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is about research on service guarantee elements for the users of electric vehicles. The results of the research can be really important for the electric vehicle users, the electric vehicle providers, and for the authorities as well. The paper presents interesting and important new research results and is well written in general, but in the contents and in the editing, there are several major problems that must be corrected next to several minor mistakes. Because of these, I suggest reconsidering the paper after a major revision, based on my next comments.

Regarding the content of the paper, I have the following comments and suggestions:

·       Instead of the term “new energy logistics vehicle”, “new energy road freight vehicle” should be used, as the paper is about road vehicles and not about railway and waterway solutions. This should be changed everywhere in the paper, including the title.

·       The paper is actually focusing on electric vehicles, but they are referred as “new energy vehicles”. It must be clarified in every part of the paper that electric vehicles are examined only, and no other new energy technologies are considered. It is really important to clarify it in the abstract as well, but it would be even better to use the term “electric vehicle” everywhere in the paper and in the title as well, instead of using the term “new energy vehicle”.

·       In the paper, China is in the focus, as it is stated only in the conclusion section. It would be really important to highlight every else in the paper (especially in the abstract, in the research objectives section, and at the questionnaire) that primarily China is examined.

·       The research subject of the paper is not clear; in some sections, it is described as “new energy logistics vehicles”, in some, it is referred as “new energy micro logistics vehicles”, and in section 3.1., it is referred as “new energy mini-van logistics vehicles”. Please, make this clear in the whole paper, including the title and the abstract, considering my previous comment regarding the use of term “new energy road freight vehicle”.

·       “The development of new energy logistics vehicles is primarily driven by three factors: ...” This part starting in line 85 must be organized differently, (1), (2), and (3) should be separate paragraphs or separate subchapters; this section must be reorganized with considering this.

·       Between the titles “3. Methodology” and “3.1. Research Subjects and Participants”, a paragraph is missing where you present the whole section 3. You should describe here what is presented in this section.

·       Instead of the term “research object”, “research subject” should be used everywhere in the paper.

·       On Figure 1, the 2 parts should be identified as well by showing their names (Part 1 and Part 2). Later in the paper, it is also not clear how Part 1 and Part 2 are separated; this must be clarified at every point.

·       Regarding the questionnaire, it is not clear how the respondents were reached, how many people were asked, and how representative are the answers received. Please, make these points clear in subsection 3.2.1.

·       It would be great to see some example questions from the questionnaire or even to see the whole questionnaire as an appendix to the paper. Please, consider this.

·       Between the titles “4. Data Analysis and Results”, “4.1. Data Analysis“, and “4.1.1. Part One - Finding User Pain Points”, two paragraphs are missing, where you present first the whole section 4, and then where you present subsection 4.1. You should describe here what is presented in these sections.

Regarding the editing and the language of the paper, the following major problems occurred:

·       The name of the figures must be before the figure itself; actually, it is incorrect, and the figure should come only after its description. At the Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, this must be corrected.

·       “the” is missing before several nouns; this must be checked and corrected in the whole paper.

·       At tables, it is very important to have the whole table with its caption on the same page to make it easy to follow. At Table 1, and 3, this is incorrect; please, re-edit this part and have the whole table on one page. It is also important to have the table in the paper only after presenting it.

·       Figure 3 and Figure 4 cannot be read. Actually, they must be completely re-edited; in their current form, they are no value added to this paper.

·       In Table 4, the formatting is not consistent; the whole table should be centered or not centered; it should be the same everywhere. The spacing is incorrect as well, it must be checked and corrected too.

·       Table 7 is bigger than a full page, so it should be divided into 2 tables; it will be much easier to follow it then.

·       In several tables, there are spacings after the texts, which are absolutely not necessary. This must be checked everywhere and removed where it is necessary.

Additionally, I have several comments and suggestions regarding the minor problems of the paper:

·       The decimals and thousandths separators should be used consistently; in the case of decimals, points should be used (“.”), and in the case of thousandths separators, commas should be used everywhere (“,”). Actually, for example, in line 27, “,” is used instead of “.”.

·       The sentence starting in line 41 is really hard to follow; please, rewrite it and make a list in it to make it easier to follow.

·       In line 54, “only” is missing from the sentence; it should be changed to “but there are only a few good user service systems”.

·       In line 91, a space is missing before “[11-14]”. The situation is the same in line 95, 103, and 199; this must be corrected before all the references.

·       Within the references, where 2 papers are cited, e.g., [20,21], before the comma, a space is needed as well; please, check this in the whole paper and correct it where it is necessary.

·       The first two interview questions are incomplete, “1. Why choose a new energy logistics vehicle?” and “2. Why not choose new energy logistics vehicles?” should be changed to “1. Why to choose a new energy logistics vehicle?” and “2. Why not to choose new energy logistics vehicles?”

·       In line 263, a space is missing before “Table 4”.

·       In the title “4.1.2. Part Two- Analyzing Interview Information”, a space is missing after “Two”.

·       In Table 6, “Social effect refer to” should be changed to “Social effect refers to”, and “Environmental effect refer to” should be changed to “Environmental effect refers to”.

·       Lines 297, 298, and 299 are blank; please, remove them.

·       In line 321, space is missing before “During”.

·       In line 326, space is missing before “The majority”.

·       In the paragraph starting in line 338, several spaces are missing; please check and correct them. Additionally, there are spaces before “%”-s that are absolutely not necessary; please, remove them.

·       In the paragraph starting in line 358, several spaces are missing; please check and correct them.

·       In line 363, “ Not enough” should be changed to “not enough”.

·       In line 376, a space is missing before “Respecting”.

·       In the paragraph starting in line 397, several spaces are missing; please check and correct them.

·       In line 444, before “Based”, a space is missing.

·       In line 457, “These are the contributions of this research: First, this…” should be changed to “These are the contributions of this research. First, this…” or to “These are the contributions of this research: first, this”.

·       In line 463, “Logistics” should be “logistics” instead.

 

·       In line 478, a space is missing before “Future”.

Reviewer 4 Report

1) There is a quite difference between "This article focuses on..." (lines 56-58), and "This study examines ..." (lines 59-60), alongside with "The user service model for new energy logistics vehicles proposed in this study..." (line 64-65) and "This research investigates..." (lines 71-72), and "This research focuses mainly on..." (line 305), and "This research is founded on..." (line 416), which causes the reader confused what is the right aim/purpose/objective of the article (moreover, there is no sentence you state explicitly what is the aim of this paper). If there are two or more objectives to be meet on the same level of abstraction, then one objective, which combines them on higher level of abstraction, should be formulated, and this one objective of this paper should be related with the title of the paper and developed by research process. In my reception "The user service model..." combines your all research aims, but  please re-think it and decide as you wish.

2) In the lines 81-103, the explanation of every of three factors is included after the name of each factor, what makes reader confused what explanation of what factor he/she is just reading (moreover, I am afraid it is not correct according to grammar rules). In my opinion, you should first enumerate/list the three factors, one after one, and then to write the explanation of them.
The same comment relates to your text in lines 439-456.

3) Due to "Service Guarantee Elements" and "New Energy Logistics Vehicle Users" are categories/terms used by you in the title of your paper, their understanding should be defined in your paper more formally, explicitly in the form of definitions. Especially, how the reader should understand "service guarantee element", and who is the "user" in the context of "New Energy Logistics Vehicle", if it is a driver, a manager, a customer, a designer, ....? Your explanation: "....those who utilize traditional fuel and those who utilize new energy..." (line 188-189, 211-212, 233-234, 245-246), is too general.

4) Double "new" (line 151)

5) You decided to limit your research to "...new energy mini-van logistics vehicles as the research object." (line 158), what is not consistent with the title of your paper. If you limited your research to "mini-van" and did not extrapolate your results to other logistics vehicles, then you should also include the term "mini-van" in the title of your paper. Otherwise, the title of the paper does not reflect the contents of the paper.

6) Are you sure the term "pain points" (lines 15, 168, 187, 223, 244,...) are used in the scientific literature (I'm not talking about "grey or popular science literature")?

7) In the section "3.2. Research Process", there is no explanation on the questionnaire sample size decision to select 130 respondents (line 174). So, there is no methodology justification (no literature background) for choosing this size of respondents and not for instance 1300, or more, especially in populated China and in the light of the statement you cited that  "In China, the transportation and logistics industry is one of the major energy-consuming industries, consuming approximately 91,2% of China's gasoline and 63% of its diesel fuel annually, ranking first among all industries, and transportation industry pollutant emissions continue to rise, and reform and development are imminent." (lines 25-29). So, the research of 130 respondents in China of 1.4 billion of people with 30.4 million commercial vehicles registered in 2020, is like to  be a zero size research (even in the context of new energy logistics vehicles), or let's say a pilot/preliminary research or study you have mentioned in lines 251-252. So, the word "pilot or preliminary" should also be included in the title of your paper. Otherwise, the title of the paper does not reflect the contents of the paper.

8) Figures 3, 4 are illegible in the pdf file downloadable for reviewers.

9) What does mean "This thesis combines quantitative..." (line 144) or "...this thesis builds..." (line 146), or "This thesis conducted a two-way survey..." (line 150), or other five words "thesis" are used in your article? Does it mean you are presenting your diploma thesis results in this article? It is not allowed ethically.

10) Based on what theoretical foundations you decided that your User Guarantee Service Model presented in Fig. 5 should look at services through four perspectives, and not for instance more or less, or why just these perspectives and not the others? Of course, you have mentioned that "this thesis builds a service guarantee model centered on new energy logistics vehicle users based on service design theory [34,35]..." (lines 146-150), however it is too general, because there are no further more detailed conclusions, or course of reasoning, leading you to the decision to propose four perspectives in your model. Moreover, there is no discussion on this subject in the Discussion Section, especially if your model is to stand for the value-added theory.