Exploring the Implementation Challenges of the Electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) Regulation: An Empirical Perspective from Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s),

1. Please formulate the main scientific-research question/ part of the introduction/ which explains the framework of the research problem.

2. Please clarify the Research Instrumentation: Research Criteria, Indicators and Methods on the Table ( for example).

3. Please justify how they correlate with each other?

4. Please clarify the sampling type of experts selection (Probability, or Non-probability Sampling type?

5. What is the scientific value of your study?

6. And what is the practical applicability?

I have no further substantive comments.
The only thing that needs to be corrected are the methodological inaccuracies I have pointed out above.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article brings us a very relevant and current subject, the electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) regulation.

The article raises pertinent and important questions about the functioning of the system.

The literature review is sufficient and current, the methodology is appropriate to the objectives of the manuscript.

The discussion and conclusions draw out relevant aspects and correctly conclude this work.

It's a good work and deserves to be published, I have no comments to make.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper employs a grounded theory methodology to gain empirical insights into these challenges through interviews with a diverse group of logistics experts from Greece. However, I have some remarks as follows.

In the section 3, kindly provide justification on the selection of three experts only. Eg. is there any reference to the past studies?

Is there any other measurement besides the Holsti Coefficient? If yes, should include other measurements as well.

In the section 4, should include more analysis on the result although it is a qualitative approach.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please, see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, my comments are as follows:

1. Section 1 is overloaded with a description of the electronic document management system. Please try to shorten. At the same time, Section 1 does not clearly state the objective.

2. What are the main conclusions on section 2 (Lines 228-299)? it’s not enough to state the current works. Please summarize your conclusions on Lines 228-299. This could be a table providing an overview of the major articles mentioned in the Introduction section.

3. The authors write "Building on the identified gap in the existing literature..." (line 314). What gaps have been identified? They should be clearly identified in section 2 (after line 299).

4. It is not clear how the authors justify the 7 thematic key areas in section 4. The authors write "Based on the analysis, seven (7) thematic key areas have emerged" (line 458). However, there is no such analysis in Sections 1 and 2. Please explain to readers.

5. There are no references in the Discussions section. Please provide a clear discussion with a long list of references and discuss your findings in comparison to others.

6. The scientific novelty of research requires a clearer understanding. The authors need to clearly highlight the contribution of the paper.

7. Please provide some recommendations for future research.

Best regards!

Author Response

Please, see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript according to the given comments. Therefore, I have no further comments.

No major issue.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors responded to the reviewers' comments. They made necessary changes in the text of the manuscript. The quality of the manuscript improved.

I recommend the authors to highlight all corrections in color. It is not necessary, but in this way, you show respect to the Reviewers.

All the best!