The Electric Vehicle Market in Brazil: A Systematic Literature Review of Factors Influencing Purchase Decisions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a need to improve the clarity of the manuscript.  All nomenclature needs to be defined clearly.  SLR and SRL need to be defined starting at line 297.  

There are several figures with type size that needs to be larger (Figures 1, 2, 4,7,9, and 11.

Line 50. The 50% value is not expected because of electrification.

Line 133. The up to 30% is not expected because some values will be close to 100%.

Line 150.  Consumption is not a good word. Use is better.

Table 1 needs a citation and reference.  Where can the information be found?

Some words in some references are not in English. The English should be provided.

Figure 11 provides a different citation style without references with that style.

These citations should have numbers and corresponding references.

Figure 2 should be more complete with the type of EV given for each.  The source should have a reference number in the citation.

Lines 305 and 331 both have 3 in the heading.  This is a duplication

Figure 4.  Use . and , correctly.

Line 484.  Six appears, but Figure 10 has 5.

There is a need to improve the clarity of the paper where the fuzzy delphi method is used.

  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The clarity of the manuscript needs to be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your contributions and suggestions for improvement. We have taken the necessary steps and the changes are indicated in the text in a different color.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors performed some revisions according to the reviewers' comments, and this paper could be considered to be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your contributions and suggestions. We have taken the necessary measurements and the changes are indicated in the text in a different color. Please see the annex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your contributions and suggestions. We have taken the necessary measurements and the changes are indicated in the text in a different color. Please see the annex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the efforts to improve the manuscript.

I recommend that Figures 1, 2, 9, and 10 be improved by enlarging the figure or enlarging the print size in the figure to improve clarity.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. We have made the adjustments you requested.

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

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) in Brazil, a topic of increasing importance given the environmental challenges faced by the country. The authors conducted a systematic literature review and utilized the Fuzzy Delphi method to identify and validate variables grouped into five main blocks. These variables encompass psychological, performance, and environmental factors, as well as barriers and prospects for the automotive sector. Given the growing importance of EVs in mitigating air pollution and addressing climate change, the study's focus on Brazil fills an important gap in the literature. The findings have practical implications for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to promote sustainable transportation solutions.

However, there are some questions the authors need to clarify:

(1)   Providing more detailed explanations of the methodology, particularly regarding the selection of variables and the Fuzzy Delphi method, would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study. Readers would benefit from a clearer understanding of how these methods were applied.

 

(2)   While the paper acknowledges the need for further research, discussing potential limitations or constraints in more detail would strengthen the overall analysis. Addressing factors such as sample size limitations or potential biases in expert opinions could provide a more nuanced interpretation of the results.

 

(3)   On Page 3 Line 131-133: the authors claim that the use of electric motors energy efficiency consumes approximately 90% of available energy efficiency, maintenance costs are 20% to 30% lower, and better performance. The authors need to be specified and clear of the vehicles being compared. Are these numbers based on gasoline cars? Or hybrid cars? Please be careful when you refer some data from other source.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English editing is needed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important topic.  The clarity of the research needs to be improved.  The clarity of the results in Table 2 needs to be improved by relating the variables in Table 2 to the definition of each variable by adding numbers  to the variables where they are defined.  

On page 17, the results should be discussed more.  The relative importance of the factors is important and should be discussed.

Please make sure all abbreviations such as VES and RSL are defined.

Please increase the print size in Figures 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 11.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The clarity of the content needs to be improved.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting, the work structure and the scientific content of the paper is good, the academic level of the paper is good, the conclusions are justified. Overall, this paper is of a good quality and well-written. The work can be potentially considered after all the above-mentioned questions are properly addressed. However, the current paper is not conditionally publishable, and should be further revised.

1. The literature may be better double-checked to include some up to date references and show a clear vision of research gaps in the research topic. The rearrangement of the references is recommended to be considered.

2. Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings.

3. Suggest using machine learning methods for comparative analysis and increasing the sample size of the survey.

4. The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to my comments in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvement is required.