Methodology and Innovation in the Design of Shared Transportation Systems for Academic Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  I recommend the following revisions:

• Expand the literature review to include theoretical foundations in urban mobility and sustainability.

• Include long-term sustainability strategies, like partnerships with local government or transit authorities.
• Figure A3. Car used in the pilot test and Figure A4. Satisfaction survey application should be removed
• Add more English language references

Author Response

Comment:
Expand the literature review to include theoretical foundations on urban mobility and sustainability.
Response:
In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Introduction, 6 references have been added that cover the topics raised in the comment.
Comment:
Include long-term sustainability strategies, such as partnerships with local government or transit authorities.
Response:
This strategy has been added in the final paragraph of the Conclusion section.
Comment:
Figure A3 (Car used in the pilot test) and Figure A4 (Satisfaction survey application) should be removed.
Response:
These figures and their references in the text have been removed.
Comment:
Add more references in English.
Response:
Six English-language references were added in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Introduction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article I reviewed presents a feasibility study for implementing a ridesharing system in a university setting.

In general, this article does not meet the standards expected of a scientific article. It is more of a practical article. The reasons are as follows:
- The literature review is too brief. A great deal of research has already been done on the subject of sizing, acceptability, etc. of ridesharing in similar contexts. You must summarize this research in order to demonstrate what your proposal adds. 
- You must clearly state your research questions.
- It is difficult to know exactly what your article is about because you explore too many areas without going into them in depth.

A few comments on the methodology:
- Question 11 on page 10 is biased because it implies that the person is interested in ridesharing.

- What you call interviews are not interviews. They are more like face-to-face questionnaires. 
- It is not clear how the six people who participated in the test were selected; the sample is not really presented.

Regarding the discussion, your interpretation of the Cronbach's alpha test results is not appropriate. It does not show the internal consistency of the results but the internal consistency of the measurement tool. 
In other words, the responses of each participant are correlated with each other. The results you discuss regarding perceived safety are not clearly presented beforehand. 
Another important point is that you contextualize your study around congestion relief, but the users of your service are in fact regular public transport users.

Author Response

Comment:
The literature review is too brief. There has already been significant research on shared transportation in similar contexts. You should summarize this work to clarify your contribution.

Response:
In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Introduction, 6 references were added covering the points raised.

Comment:
Clearly state your research questions.

Response:
Research questions are stated at the end of the Introduction section.

Comment:
The article explores too many areas without going deep into any.

Response:
The third paragraph of the Introduction was revised to avoid topic dispersion and to reinforce the central research question: Is it viable to implement a shared transport system for students in urban areas like Guayaquil? The research questions are also expanded at the end of the Introduction.

Comment:
Question 11 on page 10 is leading and suggests the respondent is interested in carpooling.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We acknowledge that the wording of Question 11 may seem suggestive. However, this question was designed within a logical sequence of questions that progressively explore awareness, perception, and willingness to adopt shared transportation.
Previous questions (e.g., Questions 9 and 10) investigate knowledge and the perceived advantages/disadvantages of these systems. Question 11 aims to gather, in a hypothetical scenario, the user’s willingness without assuming interest or existing systems.
Moreover, the results were analyzed cautiously, avoiding overinterpretation. We explicitly stated that the responses should be interpreted as perceptions, not commitments. Therefore, we believe that Question 11 does not compromise the objectivity of the study and complements the questionnaire in capturing valid insights into potential adoption in university environments.

Comment:
What you call interviews are actually face-to-face surveys.

Response:
We acknowledge the correction and replaced the term "interviews" with "surveys."

Comment:
Unclear selection process for the six pilot participants; sampling not explained.

Response:
We clarified the sampling method in the revised manuscript. Participants were selected using purposive convenience sampling from students who had previously expressed willingness to participate during the survey stage. We ensured diversity in academic schedules, residence (Guayaquil, Durán, Samborondón), and usual transport modes. The selection process was transparently explained in the appropriate section.

Comment:
Your interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha is incorrect. It measures internal consistency of the instrument, not participant results.

Response:
We agree. In the revised version, we clarified that Cronbach’s alpha assesses the internal consistency of the instrument, not the consistency of participant responses. A high alpha indicates strong coherence among questionnaire items.

Comment:
Your results about perceived safety are not clearly presented.

Response:
We improved the traceability of results and expanded the argument in the first paragraph of the Discussion section.

Comment:
You contextualize your study around congestion relief, but your users are public transport users.

Response:
Two new paragraphs (3 and 4) have been added to the Discussion section to expand and clarify this contextualization.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study revizes a project that aims to design shared transportation systems in academic environments. For this, authors use an optimization approach that balances costs-efficiency and user satisfaction. The design incorporates demand, capacity, and routing strategies, applying them to real university settings to evaluate effectiveness and applicability. The topic addressssed by the study is underexplored and has a potential application in academic institutions context, particularly in places where traffic is a big issue and the isntitutions have their own transportation initiatives. A key strength of the project is the use of real data for modeling the system.

While the theme seems relevant, there are three places places where authors must work before acceptance. First, there should be a more throughout review of existing literature related to the topic. Currently, it feels that the contribution is not building on any body of knowledge. I recommend authors incorporate a Literature Review or Background section. For example, are there already shared systems in academic contexts? Or in related sustems? Is there a comparisson to be made with such systems either in terms of performance or implementation feasibility. Second, it goes related to the first point.  Once a more robust literature review is conducted, the discussion section should be reworked according to the new information. This wil make the contribution of the paper clearer and stronger. Finally, the title is missleading, I recommend working on it to clesrly reflect the contribution of the paper.

Author Response

Comment:

A more thorough literature review is needed. Include a Background or Literature Review section. For example: are there existing systems in academic settings? Related systems? Performance or feasibility comparisons?

Response:
In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Introduction, 6 references were added that address these questions.

Comment:

The Discussion section should reflect the updated literature review.

Response:
The Discussion section was revised and expanded to incorporate the new literature and reviewer suggestions.

Comment:

The title is misleading and should better reflect the article’s contribution.

Response:
The title was changed to: “Methodology for Implementing Sustainable Shared Transport in University Environments.” Keywords were also updated accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your article has not been sufficiently improved to meet the standards expected of a scientific article. It is more suited to a professional journal. There is a significant lack of perspective to enable the work carried out to benefit the scientific community.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback. We understand the concern regarding the scientific depth and broader perspective of our work. However, we respectfully note that significant improvements have been made in the current version to enhance the article’s academic rigor and relevance to the scientific community.

In particular, we have:

• Expanded the Introduction section to incorporate references to current scientific literature, including the importance of cycling in sustainable transport strategies, as suggested.

• Clearly defined the research questions and provided a structured outline of the paper's content to guide readers through our methodological framework and results.

• Detailed a multi-dimensional feasibility study (technical, economic, and social) using a stratified sample of 256 university students and a real-world pilot test, with results evaluated using established statistical reliability methods (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha = 0.9235).

• Included discussions supported by scientific references addressing traffic behavior modeling, ridesharing technology evaluation, and shared mobility implementation in academic environments.

• Proposed a replicable methodology and discussed the scalability and future lines of research in the conclusions, aiming to contribute knowledge applicable to other urban university settings.

While we acknowledge that the article is strongly oriented toward practical implementation, we believe that it also provides a systematic, evidence-based approach that can be of value to the scientific community focused on urban mobility, sustainable transport, and smart campus development.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing our comments. The paper is a good contribution.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments!