Exploring the Factors Influencing the Safety of Young Novice Drivers: A Qualitative Approach Based on Grounded Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and valuable article for a much-needed reflection on the role of young drivers. The suggested changes are minimal: (a) in the identification of the authors and their affiliations (it seems to us that the affiliation of Abbas Zabihzadeh might not be correct (2) or (3)??); (b) the white space on lines 52 (page 16) should be minimized for an appropriate presentation of Figure 2. (c) reference 13 (in the references) seems to be incorrectly cited and incomplete.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following comments:

1. The problem statement could be more focused. In the introduction section, the specific gap in the research about young novice drivers lacks clarity. Please clearly mention what aspects of the research/issue have not been studied.

2. The study used grounded theory to develop a safety model but what about inter-coder reliability? If one/single researcher has performed the coding, it may cause biases in the data interpretation.

3. In Table 1, the distinction between legal and official interveners and unofficial interveners can be clearly defined. It may confuse some readers.

4. The conclusions part simply reiterates the study findings and limitations. What is the theoretical contribution of the study? How does it extend the previous research?

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Reduce the length of the abstract.

2. The introduction section is concise and the research gap is not highlighted here. Provide one paragraph on different factors that influence the safety of young novice drivers. Also, one more paragraph on the qualitative approach and grounded theory. Merge the subsection in the introduction as a single section.

3. Why Qualitative research? The methodology is poorly presented. Several pieces of information is missing.

4. Lines 212-214 need revision.

5. Subsection 2.3 needs massive correction.

6. The first paragraph of section 3 is about methodology. So, the overall writeup of results does not follow the standard.

7. Provide some figures about the results.

8. Figure is misleading.

9. Authors must read some quality papers before resubmission here.

10. Conclusions are not conclusions.

11. Language issues and sentence structure is poor.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Send this version to a native speaker.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Correct language mistakes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some small language issues are in this version.