The Classification of Work and Offenses of Professional Drivers from Slovakia and the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To improve road safety and eliminate the negative impact of heavy-duty trucks, EU Regulation (EC) No 1049/2006 calls for the harmonization of national legislation on driving times, breaks, and rest periods for the drivers involved. Interestingly from both the social and engineering point of view, this document analyses the impact of legislation on road transport safety in Slovakia and the Czech Republic and evaluates, through appropriate tests, the factors influencing the violation of legislation depending on the type of goods transport by road, national or international.

Overall, the article is quite understandable, but some aspects could be revised.

1.      For the English language: in general, colloquial expressions should be replaced or deleted (line 33, 60, 65, 135, 225,…). Please also check as follows:

·         Personal pronouns should be avoided, and passive voice used instead (line 32, 33, 113, 127, 131, 145, 179, 231, 239, 279, 311,...)

·         Punctuation: line 32-33 (comma instead of “is”), 81, 324…

·         Position of adjectives (line 55); Comparatives and superlatives (line 53); position of adverbs (line 33, 44)

·         Repetitions of words (line 43, 44, 45, 57, 58, 59, 140, 141,…). Synonyms should be used when possible.

·         Verbs and tenses: line 42, line 68-69, line 70, line 83. Verb tenses should be standardized to make sentences consistent (line 74, 127, 131, 208,…).

·         Finally, the syntax (line 46-49; line 70-76; line 77-82) and some printing errors (line 156) should be revised to improve understanding.

2.      Line 64: table reference missing; since it is not a fundamental table for the analysis, I think it could be removed from the introduction without compromising the paper.

3.      More references in the introduction section should be included. I suggest the authors add references, to also be used in the conclusions, to compare and validate the results obtained.

4.      At the end of the introduction section authors could insert a flow chart to make the methodology used clearer.

5.      The Discussion section is not comprehensive enough to understand the results obtained. Comparing with existing literature and a more detailed description would make the analysis carried out clearer. The considerations made are very general, and no results obtained are discussed. What would most help in understanding the analysis carried out is an in-depth description of the results by comparing the values obtained with similar studies. For example, it is said several times that the type of freight transport plays an important role in the violation of regulations, how does this translate into the results obtained? Compared to studies already conducted on the topic, is this paper in line, or have different results been found?

6.      Conclusions must be completely revised. No details on the study conducted are provided but it is only a consideration on tightening of driving conditions. What are the conclusions of the paper? What are the limitations of the applied methodology? What will be future studies on the topic?

7.      The abstract does not give information on the results obtained but only the general objectives of the research are underlined; more information on the main results obtained should be provided to make the analysis more comprehensive.

8.      Lines: 104-106: the objective of the paper is clear as the authors have repeated it several times in the text (see lines 100-102 Introduction section). In this paragraph, I would initially add the description, not only the objective but also how you want to achieve it (methodology used). For example, in paragraph 2.1 the sample is described without first knowing what it will be used for.

9.      Lines 127: Authors should provide the questionnaire mentioned and add it in the appendix; in this way, it would be easier to understand the assessments made and the methodology presented would represent a tool that can also be used in different contexts.

10.  Appendix A: what does it represent? In the text I did not find references to the tables reported (A1-A9) and there is no description in the Appendix. I advise the authors to add more information and report the reference in the text for greater understanding.

11.  Lines 201-203: it is said again what the objective of the paper is without giving further information; I find many repetitions within the text that do not allow for a deep understanding of the paper

 

12.  Lines 231-239: The first person in the description of the results is not appropriate for a paper to be published in this journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

For the English language: in general, colloquial expressions should be replaced or deleted (line 33, 60, 65, 135, 225,…). Please also check as follows:

o   Personal pronouns should be avoided, and passive voice used instead (line 32, 33, 113, 127, 131, 145, 179, 231, 239, 279, 311,...)

o   Punctuation: line 32-33 (comma instead of “is”), 81, 324…

o   Position of adjectives (line 55); Comparatives and superlatives (line 53); position of adverbs (line 33, 44)

o   Repetitions of words (line 43, 44, 45, 57, 58, 59, 140, 141,…). Synonyms should be used when possible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for the time you spent with our article. We are grateful for any comments and suggestions that help improve the level of our article. Let us, please reply to your comments in this letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study tried to cluster the perceived violation of social legislation by truck drivers from the Czech and Slovak Republics using online questionnaire data. The paper has some serious flaws:

 

1.      Entire paper seems out of focus. Research gaps, direction of research and contributions are not clear.

2.      Most of the reviewed literature are out of context.

3.      Difficult to access the message of the analysis, discussion and conclusion.

4.      Writing paragraphs have an extremely disorganised structure. There is very little flow, and several sentences are hard to understand.

5.      Abstract: Mostly background except last sentence on object.

6.      Introduction: Major portions are redundant as do not reflect the context or background of the analysis and discussion that follows. Should point out the research gaps and contributions of this study at the end of the introduction before jumping into the methodology. Methodology should not start with the aim of the study.

7.       Discussion should focus on specific results and its implications. There might have some policy analysis.

 

8.      Conclusions could merge with the discussion at present condition. Alternatively, it ought to emphasise the principal findings, research constraints, and research avenues.      

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Writing paragraphs have an extremely disorganised structure. There is very little flow, and several sentences are hard to understand. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for the time you spent with our article. We are grateful for any comments and suggestions that help improve the level of our article. Let us, please reply to your comments in this letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents a well-structured analysis of the impact of social legislation on road transport safety, utilizing real research to identify factors influencing legislation violations. The methodology, including the use of cluster analysis, is thorough and contributes valuable insights into the behavior of professional drivers in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The reviewer suggested to accept for publish after some minor errors are corrected:

(1)  Consider expanding the literature review to include recent studies on similar topics to strengthen the theoretical framework.

(2)  The Figure 1 is slightly unclear

(3)Future research directions could explore intervention strategies that have been effective in other countries, providing a comparative analysis that might offer new solutions for the issues identified in this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The study presents a well-structured analysis of the impact of social legislation on road transport safety, utilizing real research to identify factors influencing legislation violations. The methodology, including the use of cluster analysis, is thorough and contributes valuable insights into the behavior of professional drivers in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The reviewer suggested to accept for publish after some minor errors are corrected:

(1)  Consider expanding the literature review to include recent studies on similar topics to strengthen the theoretical framework.

(2)  The Figure 1 is slightly unclear

(3)Future research directions could explore intervention strategies that have been effective in other countries, providing a comparative analysis that might offer new solutions for the issues identified in this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for the time you spent with our article. We are grateful for any comments and suggestions that help improve the level of our article. Let us, please reply to your comments in this letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have implemented the paper according the reviewer's comment.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The same sentences are repeated in several responses in the response file. It is quite unfortunate. By the way, the paper has improved significantly. However, responses to a few queries are still not satisfactory. For example,

Research gaps, direction of research and contributions are not clear.

Discussion should focus on specific results and their implications. There might be some policy analysis

 

Instead of in the introduction, study limitations should be in the conclusion along with the future research direction.

 

It is recommended that a third person with good English grammar proofread the entire document. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire manuscript has to be checked by a third party with good English grammar. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for the time you spent with our article. We are grateful for any comments and suggestions that help improve the level of our article. Let us, please reply to your comments in this letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf