What Type of Self-Driving Vehicle Do Citizens Imagine? Results of a Co-Creation Dialogue Across Five European Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It should be noted that in addition to transport, industry is also an important factor in gas emissions. With the transition to electricity, it is important that the sources of electricity are clean technologies, such as water and wind energy, etc. The more details about the energy efficiency of electric energy as a traction used in transport can be found inside literature (doi: 10.2478/ttt-2018-0005), which can be included in the cited literature.

Can a logistical sketch of an autonomous vehicle or bus be shown in the city, on the streets?

Explain more routes for such vehicles. What they should contain and how they can be distinguished from other traffic with classic vehicles.

Is there any information about the concept of autonomous vehicles (manufacturer, components, etc.)?

Improve the resolution of images and diagrams, as they are not fully readable.

It should be noted that such vehicles are used to transport disabled people or people who need daily therapy. They can also operate on a door-to-door basis.

Check the numbering of the chapters in the paper. The discussion chapter has the wrong numbering, as do the chapters after it. There is no conclusions chapter, but discussion appears twice as a chapter. Rephrase the conclusions from that aspect.

Cite the author's previous literature in this area. Specify proposals for further research. Technically check the material. At the beginning, explain what the logistics of AV implementation include and support the explanation with a sketch.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a summary of how to conduct a questionnaire survey, along with a brief discussion of the survey results. The topic of the survey focuses on European citizens' perceptions of the mobility services offered by autonomous vehicles. The paper is generally clear in its presentation. However, despite the relevance of the topic, the paper dedicates considerable space to discussing the survey methodology, and divides the data (which has a very small sample size) into numerous groups. From a survey research perspective, this approach raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the findings.

Additionally, the paper lacks conciseness and contains several simple errors. For example, reference [88] is cited, yet the reference list only includes 25 sources. Furthermore, the last two chapters are labeled with the same title, "Discussion," and the numbering sequence is also incorrect. The first-line indentations are inconsistent throughout the document.

The final discussion section lacks meaningful insights and seems to be written in a way that is overly generic, potentially resembling output generated by an automated tool such as ChatGPT.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this is a good paper. The quality is high and I will provide some specific comments to the Authors for further improvement:

1. The authors need to re-construct the abstract again to show the objective and motivation of this paper clearly. 

2. It is not suggested to use many acronyms in the Abstract and Conclusions. 

3. The manuscript should be proof-read further, to improve the presentation clarity.

4. It is suggested to improve reference list, 10.1109/LRA.2025.3536840,

10.1109/TIV.2023.3322729, etc.

5. The trajectory graphs reflect that the task is accomplished, but the authors should add/analyze different aspects to the simulation, to show that to what extent they are satisfied or show where the algorithm would diverge. Did the proposed method have to sacrifice the performance in order to achieve other goal of the missions? Also, please emphasize more advantages/disadvantages/key aspects of the presented simulation and experimental results.

6. The authors have to show the performance of the algorithm with or without model uncertainty. Moreover, they should assess the influence of these uncertainties in more detail. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript does not yet meet the requirements for publication in the target journal for the following reasons:

1. Firstly, the study lacks a comprehensive literature review of related research in the field. As a result, it is impossible to assess the novelty of the research content or its contribution to the academic community.

2. Secondly, the sections on the research background and significance are insufficiently developed and fail to provide a strong foundation for the study.

3. Thirdly, the numbering and organization of the chapters throughout the manuscript are disordered, making it difficult to follow the structure.

4. Finally, the most significant contribution of this study should be presented in the penultimate chapter. The authors should place more emphasis on this section, as the current description is too broad and lacks innovation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From the reviewer’s perspective, this article has significant issues that remain unresolved. I recommend that the editor carefully assess the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The key concerns are outlined as follows:

1. The authors state that this work is not a survey but rather a co-creation. However, the distinction between the two is unclear. While the questions may be relatively open-ended, the study still gathers information in a survey-like manner, presenting the data in a form of survey analysis while incorporating general and non-concise discussion. This raises concerns regarding the validity of the analysis in Section 3 and makes it difficult to identify any unique contributions amidst the redundant discussions in Section 4.

2. The authors acknowledge that the sample size is small and explicitly state that the results are not intended to be generalized to a larger population. However, the results are presented with extensive categorization and bar charts, which are typically used to illustrate broader trends. Additionally, while the text accompanying the charts is clear, it lacks depth and substantive discussion.

3. The conclusion section remains poorly structured. The first paragraph merely reiterates the research purpose, while the remaining paragraphs recommend the adoption of co-creation methods. As a result, the article lacks a substantive conclusion that synthesizes the key findings and contributions. Furthermore, I neither find clear or significant findings throughout the manuscript.

4. The manuscript should be revised for conciseness, as the current version is excessively casual. Furthermore, there are typographical errors, particularly in the indentation of the first lines of paragraphs, which need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has effectively addressed my previous concerns.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Following your general recomendation, we have improved the references of the manuscript to be more adequate referenced.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been slightly improved. At this stage, it becomes consistency, primarily due to the removal of redundant information and correction of grammatical issues. However, in the reviewer’s opinion, the paper still does not meet the standards of a high-quality journal, mainly due to its limited scholarly contribution and lack of completeness. It remains a typical survey report based on a very limited sample size. I kindly ask the editor-in-chief for a final decision on the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you sincerely for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We truly appreciate your feedback and recognize its value in refining and improving our work. While we are grateful for your comments, we respectfully disagree with your overall assessment of the manuscript.

We believe that the article makes a meaningful and original contribution to the ongoing discourse on emerging trends in future transportation, particularly in the context of inclusive and citizen-driven approaches to autonomous mobility. In its revised form, the manuscript incorporates significant improvements and clarifications, many of which were inspired by the reviewers’ comments, including your own.

We are confident that the study presents timely and relevant insights that enrich the current literature.