How to Cross the Chasm for the Electric Vehicle World’s Laggards—A Case Study in Kuwait

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) Introduction needs minor revision. Add some fresh references, elaborate on the scope of the research, and try to make the rationale a bit more specific. 

2) Problem statement needs some more coherence and support from the previous studies and introduction sections. 

3) The section of discussion needs more elaboration.

4) Conclusion and implications need some addition from the extant literature. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my paper, due to your comments the paper has greatly improved.  

As per instruction we revised the abstract, introduction and the problem statement, the discussion section was expanded, conclusion and implication was strengthen in light of extant literature that was added. Finally we sent the paper for WEVJ English and formating editing.  Again thank you and best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review sheet

This paper investigates the preferences of Kuwaiti consumers for electric vehicles, focusing on Kuwaiti conventional car drivers. The effect of several demographic, technological and infrastructural variables on the identified preferences is studied. A quantitative method is used and the results show that drivers have higher preferences for environmental attributes, financial attributes and technological attributes. However,  some issues need to be addressed. This manuscript can consider for publication after the following revisions.

 

1. The introduction is brief, with little relevant current research covered and the research gap is not very clear to highlight the innovation and need for this research. Please add some description of existing research work to highlight the significance of the study.

 

2. The section "3. Literature Review" only states that previous studies have not studied these five attributes simultaneously. However, the need, advantages and reasons for considering all five attributes together are not addressed. Please add this section.

 

3. The description of the analysis methods in section 3.4 is too brief and only describes the analysis methods used. Please expand on the analytical methods used to make it easier for the reader to read.

 

4. The analysis process lacks theoretical description, the theory of the analytical calculations of the data obtained from the survey is not mentioned and the final results are given directly. It is suggested that some theoretical formulae for the calculation process be added.

 

5. There are no figures in the paper. It is suggested to include some figures to make the content more concrete to be expressed.

 

6. You should highlight a few particular results of this work.

 

7. There are some errors in the paper, for example: 1) The numbering of the headings "3. Literature Review" and "3. Data collection, Methodology" is duplicated. 2) The paragraphs after section 3.3 are not indented and do not match the preceding text. 3) In section 3.3, line 231 says " As Table 1 demonstrates", shouldn't this be "Table 2" to be correct? Please check the whole text again carefully to avoid these errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for detailed review and comments.  Due to your effort the paper has significantly improved.  As instructed the abstract, introduction and problem statement has been rewritten and improved for readability and relevance.  2) Literature review section was expanded accordingly as follow: "It is necessary to point out that the previous literature investigated consumers preferences of EVs were considered thin and single layer of the five attributes while other valuable factors for predictions were ignored and neglected. Interestingly, very few literatures examined more than two attributes in single research. Therefore, the present research aimed to investigate all five types of attributes together because it provides a comprehensive and up-to-date holistic picture of EVs preferences which never been studied before.  Additionally, the present paper helps to address this fundamental gap in the literature.  Another advantage is that if the research undertakes all five attributes altogether, it might lie a solid foundation for upcoming studies to consider future reoccurring issues and assist the prediction of possible solutions for EVs adoptions based on the present findings of this study. "

3) This section (4.4) was expanded as suggested to make it easier for the reader

4) Theoretical description was added in section 4.4. The final results are given directly to make easier for the reader and to reduce the words number in the manuscript. Note that no hypothesis was formulated because this study was conducted to explore the prevalence of the attributes of EVs among customers.  

5) Figure 1-3 were added to the manuscript

6) Important results were strengthen for better clarity and relevance. 

7. The identified error were fixed and corrected.  The whole test was checked carefully to avoid any similar error too and finally the test was send to WJEV editorial service for English and formating.   

Thank you again for your valuable time and effort. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The introduction to the article lacks an introduction to the overall context framework of the article.

2. There is an error in the ordinal numbers of the various subheadings of the article. Forexample, Literature Review and Data Collection, Methodology have the same designation.

3.Table 2, Table 5 and Table 6 in the article have too much white space before the table, and there is a problem with the layout of the article When editing the paper with Latex, you can use the vspace{-2.0em} command to reduce the distance between the table and the text.

4. There are too many tables in the article, and the difficulty of reading increases, and individual charts can be represented by a doughnut pie chart, and the combination of charts makes the content of the article more substantial.

5. The text format of the article title and content needs to be unified, and the title can be unified in bold form, not inconsistent.

6.The article does not explain the reliability of calculating averages as indicators.

7. There is little research on the brand attributes in the factors affecting EV preference, and the final survey results contradict the existing conclusions and need further verification.

8.In the questionnaire collection part, the number of participants or multiple sampling methods can be appropriately increased to increase the credibility of the research results.

9. In the data discussion part of the article, some variables should be controlled for pairwise analysis, and multiple groups of comparative studies should be carried out, so that the conclusions of the article are richer.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your time and effort.  Due to you the paper has been rewritten and greatly improved, that include the abstract, introduction and problem statement.  Tables are now presented more clearly,  Research highlight of the paper presented more clearly.  All types and errors fixed by authors and then sent to the WEVJ for English and formating editing.  Again thank you for your time and effort.  

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The concept of paper is good and well explained.

Abstract need to more precise.

The introduction need to improve with more recent papers on impacts of emobility and design considerations of charging stations as mentioned below.

All tables are to be more clear and precise way to understand easily.

The intro section can add research highlights of the paper.

More typo errors are there need to recheck

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.  

Thank you greatly for your time and effort.  Due to your comments the paper has been rewritten and has greatly improve.  1. Abstract, Introduction and Problem statement were rewritten for greater readability and relevance. 2.  Formulation were discussed in more detail as suggested. 3.  Motivation section was added into the problem statement and answered in the discussion and conclusion.  4. 

Literature review section was updated as suggested: " In recent literature, several reviews works have been accomplished related to barriers and opportunities that affect the economic and development of public charging infrastructures (Sadeghian et al 2022, Nour et al 2020, Zhang et al 2018). Another review works studied the charging solutions and optimization techniques comprehensively, charging scheduling, data mining, load forecasting, wireless charging technologies, cybersecurity of on-boarding charging systems, power system quality in smart microgrids and multi-microgrids network and the applications of green energy to supply EVs loads, prediction-based mechanism for dynamic response schemes compatible with smart prosumers’ behavior (Mansouri et al 2023, Mansouri et al 2022, Mansouri et al 2022, Nawaz et al 2022, Aziz et al 2022, Ravi and Aziz 2022, Slama2022,  Solanke 2020, Chandwani 2020,  Ahmadi 2019, Amjad et al 2018, Al-Ogalli at al 2019, Ahmad et al 2019, Knez 2019, Ahmad et al 2017). 5. Contribution section was revised.  6.  Conclusion and implication section was expanded and updated.  7.  After all amendments the paper was sent to WJEV for English and formatting editing to fixes overlooked small error and improve format.  We are very proud of the outcome and would like to extent the thanks to you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

‎The aacceptance can be achieved after addressing the below comments:

1- The authors must enhance the Abstract section and add some numerical results in it.

2- Formulations must be discussed in more detail.

3- The authors must enhance the Motivation section and discuss more related issues to it.

4- The Literature Review section must be updated with recently published papers. You can use references such as ‘A hierarchical scheduling framework for resilience enhancement of decentralized renewable-based microgrids considering proactive actions and mobile units’, ‘An IoT-enabled hierarchical decentralized framework for multi-energy microgrids market management in the presence of smart prosumers using a deep learning-based forecaster’, and ‘A risk-based bi-level bidding system to manage day-ahead electricity market and scheduling of interconnected microgrids in the presence of smart homes’, ‘Operation of energy hubs with storage systems, solar, wind and biomass units connected to demand response aggregators’ to discuss technical and economic advantages of DERs and active prosumers for the system operation.

5- The contribution section should be written more clearly and highlight the strengths of the paper.

 

‎‎6- The conclusion section can be updated with prominent and numerical results.

Author Response

Abstract was revised and enhanced.

Formulations were discussed in more detail as suggested.

Motivation section was enhanced and added to the problem statement and also mention in extended introduction

Literature review section was updated as suggested: " In recent literature, several reviews works have been accomplished related to barriers and opportunities that affect the economic and development of public charging infrastructures (Sadeghian et al 2022, Nour et al 2020, Zhang et al 2018). Another review works studied the charging solutions and optimization techniques comprehensively, charging scheduling, data mining, load forecasting, wireless charging technologies, cybersecurity of on-boarding charging systems, power system quality in smart microgrids and multi-microgrids network and the applications of green energy to supply EVs loads, prediction-based mechanism for dynamic response schemes compatible with smart prosumers’ behavior (Mansouri et al 2023, Mansouri et al 2022, Mansouri et al 2022, Nawaz et al 2022, Aziz et al 2022, Ravi and Aziz 2022, Slama2022,  Solanke 2020, Chandwani 2020,  Ahmadi 2019, Amjad et al 2018, Al-Ogalli at al 2019, Ahmad et al 2019, Knez 2019, Ahmad et al 2017)."

The contribution section was revised and relevance shown in sink  with the introduction and the problem statement.

Conclusion and implications section was expanded and updated. Please see the parts with blue font. Finally the paper was sent to WJEV editing services for English and format editing  We greatly thank you for your time and effort.  Because of your comments the paper has greatly improved in terms or being relevant, interesting, readable and scientific.  Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All concerns have been addressed. It can be accepted now.

Reviewer 3 Report

I think this paper is fit for the publish in the journal.

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have been addressed all the comments