Key Aspects for IT-Services Integration in Urban Transit Service of Medium-Sized Cities: A Qualitative Exploratory Study in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have done good work still I have some suggestions to improve this paper. Abstract could be concisely rewritten. In the introduction section you can provide some research questions. It will be easy to understand the motto for doing this research clearly. Likert scale is not provided in the manuscript. Although you have provided some reference, it could be added as table. Justify the number of participants considered in this research. Is it enough? State the reason. You could write the interview procedure in steps. Academic and practical implications can be written.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

accepted with current shape 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your evaluation and suggestions to our research. We have reviewed and applied improvements in the writing and grammar of English in our paper.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper conducts a series of video interviews with 16 participants who comes from government companies to explore the major influence of several aspects for IT-services integration in public transit service. The interviewees in this study are the main heads of policy decision-making department, including the chief operating officers and the chief technology officers. The method of qualitative content analysis is used in data coding to refine the key categories and create the theoretical schema. Some conclusions from technological aspect, economic aspect and administrative aspect are summarized in explaining the concerns of policy makers about the integration technology for the urban transit of Colombia cities. Overall, I think the authors have done a good job in data collection process, and the article structure is quite well. However, in order to be published in the journal Sustainability, the paper needs to be further improved in several aspects. My comments and questions for this paper are as follows:

 

Firstly, why this study should be limited to the medium-sized city? From the perspective of analysis results, the research conclusions also seem to be suitable for the large-scale cities. For example, the article said “the services prioritized for implementation can be implemented with existing technologies that have a high degree of maturity and technologies with high expectations in the medium future” (page 12, line 489 to 494). I think these technologies or methods are also of great interest to large cities. Therefore, what is the demand for IT-services technology in medium-sized cities?

 

Secondly, some technical details of analysis method are not described or explained in this article. For example, the qualitative content analysis method of transcript in data coding has not been introduced in detail. It’s not helpful for readers to understand the data processing of this paper smoothly. A deeper description of this section needs to be added in the revised manuscript.

 

Thirdly, the investigation was conducted at eight medium-sized cities of Colombia. What are the reasons for selecting these cities for in-depth investigation and analysis? On the other words, whether other cities could provide some different research points or conclusions? Why not to select some cities of other sizes for in-depth discussion?

 

Fourthly, in administrative aspect the authors said “UTS (Urban Transit System), in Colombian medium-sized cities, faces major challenges related to the decrease in the number of users and the increase in illegal transportation” (Page 11, line 433 to 435). I’m curious about the main reason for the user decline of transit service is COVID-19 or illegal transportation. For different reasons, the focus considered in IT-services integration should be different. The article is not being very clear about it.

 

Fifthly, to improve readability and comprehensively of this paper, the manuscript needs to be simplified in several parts. For example, in the section of background (page 4, line 156 to 199), the authors explain the reference papers one by one. This is obviously lack of literature induction and reorganization. Therefore, the expressions like these need to be revised in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have incorporated all my suggestions satisfactorily. This manuscript may be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts in revising this manuscript, and I see a substantial improvement of the current version of the manuscript. The research topic of this paper is quite good, and it also can make up for some gaps in the relevant aspects. I think this article has a certain value for publishing in Sustainability.