Utility in Time Description in Priority Best–Worst Discrete Choice Models: An Empirical Evaluation Using Flynn’s Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, consult the details in annex. The referee recommends the article for publication after the correction of all typos.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reasonable. The reviewer  found minor typos.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We appreciate the comments offered. We would like to express our deepest thanks. To facilitate the evaluation of revised manuscript, we have provided a concise, point-by-point listing of the changes that were made in response to the Stats reviews_response referees’ comments. 

Again, thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposed a new copula-based model (CO-CUB) for the transition probability, which can handle the dependent structure of best-worst scaling in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Overall, the manuscript is interesting. However, there are some issues that must be addressed before the paper is accepted.

At the end of the abstract, the author should provide the numerical results in no more than two sentences.

The novelty of the paper is unclear. Please provide the novelty of your work at the end of section one, preferably, point-wise.

For Section 1, the authors should provide comments of the cited papers after introducing each relevant work. What readers require is, by convinced literature review, to understand the clear thinking/consideration why the proposed approach can reach more convinced results. This is the very contribution from the authors.

The literature survey is very limited. The authors should cover a broader range of models and techniques. For example, 10.1007/s40271-017-0288-y , 10.1002/for.2624

Results need to be compared with existing studies or state-of-the-art works in the domain.

The authors should explain the results in more detail.

In addition, the authors should provide the study's limitations as well as future recommendations.

English quality is fine.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We appreciate the comments offered. We would like to express our deepest thanks. To facilitate the evaluation of revised manuscript, we have provided a concise, point-by-point listing of the changes that were made in response to the Stats reviews_response referees’ comments. 

Again, thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As the authors addressed my concerns, I recommend the paper for publication in its present form.

English writing is good.