Research on the Thermal Comfort Experience of Metro Passengers Under Sustainable Transportation: Theory of Stimulus-Organism-Response Integration with a Technology Acceptance Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The aim must be more specific, measurable and related to the content of the study (rows 91-92).
2. There is no answer to the question “Is there a definitive link between unsafe passenger behaviors and their underlying 302 motivational factors as well as decision-making processes related to those behaviors?” (rows 302-303), as it is not clear which of the dimensions and measurement items in Table 1 are related to unsafe passenger behaviour.
3. Why authors describe hypotheses starting from H9? Maybe it should start with H1? Or change the numbering of the hypotheses.
4. "rideability" or "riderability"? Consistently use the terms throughout the article.
5. Perceived "availavility" or "rideability" (rows 357, 360)? Consistently use the terms throughout the article
6. Table 1. What do abbreviations WD, SD, LS, KC, SS, DJ, JC mean? All abbreviations must be explained. Explain the abbreviations in the text where they are first mentioned.
7. As the study focused on what lead to diminished motivations for unsafe behaviors among passengers, the question arose, which of the statements in the Table 1 relate to unsafe passenger behaviour? More explanation is needed as to why these questions were chosen and how they relate to unsafe passenger behaviour.
8. Table 2. How do the verbal assessments "very clear," "clear," "unclear," and "very unclear" align with the numerical values in Table 2?
9. “Each item statement was modified based on the feedback and ….” (row 462-463). How modified? Which numerical method was used?
10. The age of the respondents ranged from 18-35, 35-60, etc. (Section 5.1, Table 3). Was 35 included in each range? A clear distinction must be made between the age range in which respondents aged 35 were included.
11. “Most respondents indicated their travel time ranged from 30 to 60 minutes (50.9%), followed by those who traveled for durations between 0 and 30 minutes (32.5%)” (rows 474-476). Was 30 min included in each range? A clear distinction must be made between the minutes range.
12. Section 5.4.1. Check the concepts of kurtosis and skewness. Kurtosis is used to determine if there are any outliers in our data. It indicates the overall degree of variation. The expected value of kurtosis is 3. This is observed in a symmetric distribution. Skewness refers to the degree of symmetry, or more specifically, the degree of lacking symmetry. If this value is between: -0.5 and 0.5, the distribution of the value is almost symmetrical; -1 and -0.5, the data is negatively skewed, and if it is between 0.5 to 1, the data is positively skewed. The skewness is moderate. If the skewness is lower than -1 (negatively skewed) or greater than 1 (positively skewed), the data is highly skewed. Revise paragraph above Table 4.
13. Section 5.4.4. The results of Pearson's correlation analysis vary between 0 to 1. In Table 9, the correlation scores vary between 0 and 0.5. It cannot be concluded that the results of Table 9 indicate a uniform positive significant correlation. Some of the results with values closer to 0 indicate a weaker positive correlation, while some of the results with values closer to 0.5 indicate a stronger positive correlation.
14. What do the asterisks next to the numerical values in Table 9 mean? If this means that an explanation is needed, please provide it below the table.
15. Discussion. The insights in the discussion section are not based on the results of the survey and calculations. Please provide more references to the results of the calculations and the findings of the survey itself to support your conclusions.
16. Conclusions. Authors state that proposed framework helps to reduce crowd density in these areas (row 839). I disagree that your study will help to reduce the density of people in metro train compartments, as this depends on a greater number of variables that were not addressed in your study. The limitations of the study must be discussed in the conclusions.
17. In Conclusions authors state that “As passengers' perceptions of environmental rideability and comfort improve, their propensity to engage in unsafe behaviors diminishes” (rows 846-847). The article does not provide evidence for this statement. There are no questions in the questionnaire that are directly related to this statement.
18. Figure 2 is illegible. It is suggested to rotate it to increase the format and to make the entries more visible.
19. Figure 3 is illegible. Please enlarge the image as the entries are not legible.
20. Figure 4 duplicated Figure 1 (the same content). I suggest removing Figure 4.
21. Source citations required for statements on rows 424-425, 430-433, 455, 513.
22. The reference list lacks more recent sources. Some sources do not include the year, the name of the journal and other relevant source information.
23. For more comments, see the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
尊敬的审稿人，由于信件的长度，我在回复信中包含了具体的修改回复。 感谢您的评论。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The article starts with the relationship between thermal comfort in the subway and passenger behavior, which is a relatively novel topic. However, it is recommended to more clearly highlight the innovation of this study in the introduction, especially by specifying its contributions based on existing literature.
2.The article briefly mentions the limitations of the study but lacks a discussion on the extrapolation of the results and the limitations of the experimental design. It is suggested to clearly outline the study’s limitations and discuss factors that could impact the results.
3.The literature review provides a broad overview of relevant studies, but the discussion of certain key concepts (such as “behavioral models” and “thermal comfort perception”) could be more detailed. Specifically, it is recommended to include more empirical studies on the relationship between thermal comfort and passenger behavior, particularly research on subways and other public transport systems.
4.The article combines the SOR model and TAM model to study the relationship between thermal comfort perception and passenger behavior, which is an innovative approach. However, it is suggested to elaborate on how these two models are integrated, especially how they are specifically applied in analyzing subway passenger behavior.
5.The article combines the SOR model and TAM model to study the relationship between thermal comfort perception and passenger behavior. It is recommended to further clarify the integration of these two models, particularly their specific application in analyzing subway passengers' behavior.
6.Regarding the questionnaire design, it is suggested to further explain how the validity and reliability of the content are ensured, especially how the independence and relevance of multi-dimensional measurements (such as "thermal comfort" and "behavioral motivation") are maintained.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The overall language of the article is clear, and the logical structure is sound. However, some parts are expressed in a slightly complex manner. It is recommended to simplify certain long sentences to make them more easily understandable. In particular, the methods section is quite technical, which may pose comprehension challenges for non-academic readers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, due to the length of the letter, I have put the specific revised reply in the reply letter. Thank you for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
