To Sustainably Ride or Not to Ride: Examining the Green Consumption Intention of Ride-Hailing Services in the Sharing Economy by University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My biggest issue is the (too) general approach to hypotheses and conclusions (in fact, in the largest part of the paper) when it is clear that the sample is made of people that use ride-hailing, which inevitably influences the findings. The results depict the attitudes of this group of people.

I would suggest adding "ride-hailing" to keywords.

Environmental knowledge is key to this research but I am not convinced it is measured appropriately while there is no actual explanation on what the authors perceive EK to be. The way it is set, the respondents perception about their own knowledge is measured, not the actual knowledge. Maybe I am mistaking, but the is the impression due to available data.

The style of referencing would need to be unified, there is a mix of styles (marked).

Please find some of the minor remarks and suggestions in the attached paper. I've marked words, sentences and places in text that I think should be considered once more.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would suggest English language editing, while there are several sentences with questionable structure, as well as several typographical errors (marked in the document).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer One,

Warm Greetings,

Thank you very much for your thorough review and invaluable feedback. We truly appreciate your expert comments and have worked diligently to incorporate them into our manuscript. Your suggestions have significantly refined our work and enhanced its overall quality.

We believe that your insights have made our research more robust and publication-ready. Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for a detailed list of changes we have incorporated in response to your comments

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

 

Note: Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Please see the attached file.

sincerely,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have mentioned them in the review report.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Two,

Warm Greetings,

Thank you very much for your thorough review and invaluable feedback. We truly appreciate your expert comments and have worked diligently to incorporate them into our manuscript. Your suggestions have significantly refined our work and enhanced its overall quality.

We believe that your insights have made our research more robust and publication-ready. Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for a detailed list of changes we have incorporated in response to your comments

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

 

Note: Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally, To Sustainably Ride or Not to Ride depends on to have own vehicle. The article does not give this answer because the sample of research is not good. The sample includes only students (the reader can assume that students don have own vehicle and they have to use ride-hailing services). What would the results be if the sample included only top managers of multinational companies? The questionnaire is not present so it is hard to find out is there questions about ownership of a vehicle or about reasons for such kind of ride. The title of paper should be revise and to correspond closely to your sample of research. There are no evidence how environmental knowledge and environmental responsibility are measured. As stated, the sample includes only students and the reader can assume that they have similar knowledge. What would the results be if the sample included people with no education and/or from rural areas. For improving the article, I suggest you (1) to revise the title, (2) add in the Abstract and in the 5.2 Limitations that the research is not representative, (3) add the questionnaire that will help the reader to clear understand tables and figures.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Three,

Warm Greetings,

Thank you very much for your thorough review and invaluable feedback. We truly appreciate your expert comments and have worked diligently to incorporate them into our manuscript. Your suggestions have significantly refined our work and enhanced its overall quality.

We believe that your insights have made our research more robust and publication-ready. Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for a detailed list of changes we have incorporated in response to your comments

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

 

Note: Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments and notes have been accepted by the authors and the text has been improved. My main recommendation for revising the title of article has been accepted and it has been changed.