Managerial Challenges in Implementing European Rail Traffic Management System, Remote Train Control, and Automatic Train Operation: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper title should not contain abbreviations（ERTMS）.
2. The number of core references is insufficient, only 30.
3. The quality of figures in the paper is poor and needs further improvement.
4. The introduction section of the paper lacks coherence and needs to be reorganized.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments on our previous version of the paper. We have prepared documents showing track changes compared to the previous version.
Comment 1 : The paper title should not contain abbreviations（ERTMS）.
Answer 1 : ERTMS was removed from the title and now includes the full term
Comment 2 : The number of core references is insufficient, only 30.
Answer 2 : While we agree with the reviewer that 30 references is low, this is an emerging topic that’s has not been yet sufficiently researched to provide more references. Even though the core number of publications is 30, note that these publications are discussed based on the total reference list which include more than a hundred references in total. Future Transportation has also published literature reviews containing less references, i.e. 12. The authors have done the literature review process again and did not find additional relevant references to add.
Comment 3 : The quality of figures in the paper is poor and needs further improvement
Answer 3 : All the figures have been reviewed and improved for readability and quality.
Comment 4 : The introduction section of the paper lacks coherence and needs to be reorganized.
Answer 4 : Introduction has been reorganized and simplified.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript explores the managerial challenges in implementing the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), Remote Train Control (RTC), and Automatic Train Operation (ATO) in the railway industry. Through a systematic literature review, the authors have identified key management themes and proposed future research directions. However, while reading the manuscript, I have several questions and suggestions as follows:
1. The authors employed a scoping review methodology for literature analysis. Please explain how this method differs from other literature review methods (e.g., systematic literature review). What are the advantages of the scoping review method in this study?
2. The paper mentions the importance of stakeholder management. Have the authors considered using stakeholder mapping or analysis tools to present the roles and influences of different stakeholders more systematically?
3. Regarding organizational change management, have the authors considered applying specific change management theories (e.g., Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model) to the implementation process of ERTMS, RTC, and ATO?
4. Compared to traditional railway management methods, the authors need to use quantitative data in the experimental section to reflect the improvement effect of the proposed management approach. This could include metrics such as project success rates, implementation time, or cost savings.
5. How do the authors view the causal relationship between technology implementation and management challenges? Is it technology driving management change, or management innovation promoting the adoption of new technologies?
6. Considering the complexity and safety-critical nature of railway systems, have the authors considered discussing the role of risk management in ERTMS, RTC, and ATO projects?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments on our previous version of the paper. We have prepared documents showing track changes compared to the previous version.
Comment 1 : The authors employed a scoping review methodology for literature analysis. Please explain how this method differs from other literature review methods (e.g., systematic literature review). What are the advantages of the scoping review method in this study?
Answer 1 : A paragraph was added at the beginning of the methodology section that answers these questions
Comment 2 : The paper mentions the importance of stakeholder management. Have the authors considered using stakeholder mapping or analysis tools to present the roles and influences of different stakeholders more systematically?
Answer 2 : Thank you for this valuable contribution. The last paragraph of the stakeholder management section in the discussion now addresses stakeholders mapping and a figure of the mapped stakeholders is presented.
Comment 3 :Regarding organizational change management, have the authors considered applying specific change management theories (e.g., Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model) to the implementation process of ERTMS, RTC, and ATO?
Answer 3 : Thank you for the comment and suggestion. We now mention Kotter and the model in the conceptual overview section. However, while the Kotter Change Model is relevant to this study, the authors are already using change management frameworks such as Mikkelsen & Riis (2003) the authors believe that adding another change management framework would make the study and the discussion redundant.
Comment 4: Compared to traditional railway management methods, the authors need to use quantitative data in the experimental section to reflect the improvement effect of the proposed management approach. This could include metrics such as project success rates, implementation time, or cost savings.
Answer 4 : Thank you for your comment. This is an important research area; however, such metrics are not included in the retrieved literature. The metrics that are presented focuses on the systems, and not on the managerial processes. The authors have now included a paragraph concerning this issue at the end of section 6.2 in the discussion.
Comment 5 : How do the authors view the causal relationship between technology implementation and management challenges? Is it technology driving management change, or management innovation promoting the adoption of new technologies?
Answer 5: The authors view the relationship as new technology adoption driving managerial changes. In other words, an organization implements a technology (ERTMS, RTC, ATO), which requires updated managerial practices and processes in order to fully capture the benefits of the technology. This is explained in the last paragraph of the discussion
Comment 6: Considering the complexity and safety-critical nature of railway systems, have the authors considered discussing the role of risk management in ERTMS, RTC, and ATO projects?
Answer 6: From a change management perspective, risk in a project management perspective is now mentioned in section 2.2. From a product related safety risk management, this is a key issue in the development of these systems, but this study focuses on managerial issues. Safety concerns from the involved stakeholders is considered being a key part of the stakeholder analysis process. The authors have however included these recommendations in future research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper discusses a study that identifies the impact of contributing factors on the pre-departure research time choice for high-speed rail travel.
Firstly, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed explanation of the hypotheses you formulated for the survey, as well as clarify the relationships between the contributing factors and the final results under the assumed timeframe. Additionally, including a figure to visually represent these relationships is highly recommended.
Secondly, the discussion section of the paper is somewhat underdeveloped. Please consider expanding it in future revisions to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
Finally, I recommend summarizing the quantitative findings in the conclusion. If you intend to explore future work, please be sure to highlight these considerations as well.
Overall, the paper is well-structured and presents a reasonable analysis. However, further proofreading may be required in later versions. Please also avoid using AI tools for revisions, as the terminology might not always be appropriately applied.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments on our previous version of the paper. We have prepared documents showing track changes compared to the previous version.
Comment 1 : Firstly, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed explanation of the hypotheses you formulated for the survey, as well as clarify the relationships between the contributing factors and the final results under the assumed timeframe. Additionally, including a figure to visually represent these relationships is highly recommended
Answer 1 : Thank you for this comment. A hypothesis as now been formulated in the introduction and figures presented later in the paper illustrating the relationship are included.
Comment 2: Secondly, the discussion section of the paper is somewhat underdeveloped. Please consider expanding it in future revisions to provide a more comprehensive analysis
Answer 2 : By including the comments of reviewers 1 and 2, the discussion section as now be further developed.
Comment 3: Finally, I recommend summarizing the quantitative findings in the conclusion. If you intend to explore future work, please be sure to highlight these considerations as well.
Answer 3: Thank you for this suggestion. By responding the comments of the reviewer 2, this issue as been resolved.
Comment 4: Overall, the paper is well-structured and presents a reasonable analysis. However, further proofreading may be required in later versions. Please also avoid using AI tools for revisions, as the terminology might not always be appropriately applied.
Answer 4: Proof reading has been made.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsN/A
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
