Design and Application of Experience Management Tools from the Perspective of Customer Perceived Value: A Study on the Electric Vehicle Market
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is unclear from the manuscript what is the social and what is the scientific justification of the research. The manuscript is too long and looks more like a master's thesis than a scientific paper. The authors need to do a better job of guiding the reader through the research. The essence should be presented in the manuscript, and the text should be significantly shortened; that is, unnecessary statements should be removed. I suggest making the following changes and additions to the manuscript:
It is unclear what the essential goal of the presented research is.
Lines 46-54: This text has no place in the introduction.
Lines 55-63: The text must be presented in a better way.
The need for research is unclear. The subject of the research and the problem under consideration must be presented in detail in the introductory chapter.
The introductory chapter should be better written to prepare the reader for the continuation of the research that follows. The general impression is that the Introductory Chapter is disjointed.
In the introduction, highlight the importance of electric vehicles from the aspect of ecology and energy efficiency. In the introduction, it is necessary to point out the following: "For example, the application of EVS in the supply chain can improve energy efficiency by about 40%, which can lead to a significant reduction of GHG emissions by up to 30%." Consult and include the following research: https://doi.org/10.18485/aeletters.2023.8.4.1
Line 107-108: If the text refers to more than one researcher, must there be more than one citation in the sentence.
Lines 155-156: Incorrect author citation in text when there are more than two authors.
All images have text that is not in English, it is unclear what the text is.
Line 209-211: Delete the text.
Lines 225-226: List the cases discussed.
Lines 513-514: Unclear context sentences.
Figure 1 has no meaning because it is completely unclear to the reader.
The methodology of the work is unclear. It is necessary to enumerate which scientific methods, techniques, software, etc. tools they use in research. The key scientific method "factor analysis" is first mentioned in line 293.
Line 353: Which authors are we talking about? See: ”Kowalska-Pyzalska et al. (2021)”
In the Conclusion, it should be pointed out what was the scientific justification of the research.
The choice of references is good.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer A Comments
1. Summary
We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their thorough review and insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have made substantial revisions to various sections of the paper, particularly the introductory chapter. These revisions include clarifying the research need, refining the presentation of our study's objectives, and enhancing the overall coherence and flow of the introduction to better prepare readers for the research that follows. Additionally, we have significantly reduced the length of the manuscript to improve clarity and focus.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: Lines 46-54: This text has no place in the introduction.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed this section from the introduction and expressed its ideas in a more suitable manner elsewhere in the manuscript. These changes ensure a clearer and more focused introduction.
________________________________________
Comment 2: Lines 55-63: The text must be presented in a better way.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. I have restructured this section to enhance clarity and flow, ensuring that the text effectively introduces the study's objectives and contributions. The revised text now logically connects the study's aims with its broader implications. The changes are located on page [1-2], lines [19-60].
________________________________________
Comment 3: The need for research is unclear. The subject of the research and the problem under consideration must be presented in detail in the introductory chapter.
Response 3: I appreciate your feedback. I have clarified the research need by explicitly stating the research gap and the problem being addressed. The introduction now provides a detailed explanation of the importance of customer perceived value in the EV market and the lack of comprehensive tools for enhancing this value. These revisions are on page [1-2], lines [21-39].
________________________________________
Comment 4: The introductory chapter should be better written to prepare the reader for the continuation of the research that follows. The general impression is that the Introductory Chapter is disjointed.
Response 4: Thank you for highlighting this issue. I have rewritten the introductory chapter to improve its structure and cohesiveness. The revised introduction now follows a logical progression, clearly outlining the study's context, objectives, and significance, thereby preparing the reader for the subsequent sections of the research. These changes can be found on page [1-
2
2], lines [19-69].
________________________________________
Comment 5: The introductory chapter should be better written to prepare the reader for the continuation of the research that follows. In the introduction, highlight the importance of electric vehicles from the aspect of ecology and energy efficiency. Include: "For example, the application of EVs in the supply chain can improve energy efficiency by about 40%, which can lead to a significant reduction of GHG emissions by up to 30%." Consult and include the following research: https://doi.org/10.18485/aeletters.2023.8.4.1.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have revised the introduction to emphasize the ecological and energy efficiency benefits of electric vehicles, including the statistic about supply chain improvements. The research by Bányai (2023) has been consulted and incorporated to strengthen the introduction. These changes can be found on page [1], lines [29-30].
________________________________________
Comment 6: Line 107-108: If the text refers to more than one researcher, must there be more than one citation in the sentence.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I appreciate your attention to detail. The sentence refers to multiple authors of the same article, not different articles. I have clarified the expression in the manuscript to reflect this. These changes can be found on page [3], lines [89-91].
________________________________________
Comment 7: Lines 155-156: Incorrect author citation in text when there are more than two authors.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected the author citation format for the reference on lines 155-156 to adhere to the appropriate style for more than two authors. The updated citation now correctly uses "et al." in the revised manuscript. These changes can be found on page [3], lines [117-118].
________________________________________
Comment 8: All images have text that is not in English; it is unclear what the text is.
Response 8: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have translated all the text in the images from the original language to English to ensure clarity and accessibility for the readers. The updated images with English text are now included in the revised manuscript. These changes can be found on page [19-20].
________________________________________
Comment 9: Line 209-211: Delete the text.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I have deleted the text on lines 209-211 as per your suggestion. This change has been made to improve the clarity and focus of the manuscript.
________________________________________
Comment 10: Lines 225-226: List the cases discussed.
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I have rewritten the section to clearly list and discuss all the cases. The revised text can be found on page [5], lines [194-204].
________________________________________
Comment 11: Lines 513-514: Unclear context sentences.
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the sentences to provide a clearer context for the testing environment and the scope of the tests. The revised text can be found on page [14], line [436-439].
3
________________________________________
Comment 12: Figure 1 has no meaning because it is completely unclear to the reader.
Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. I have removed Figure 1 from the manuscript as it did not effectively contribute to the understanding of the study.
________________________________________
Comment 13: The methodology of the work is unclear. It is necessary to enumerate which scientific methods, techniques, software, etc., tools they use in research. The key scientific method "factor analysis" is first mentioned in line 293.
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the methodology section to provide a clearer enumeration of the scientific methods, techniques, software, and tools used throughout the research. I have also ensured that the role of "factor analysis" is introduced earlier in the methodology section. The changes can be found on page [4-5], line [156-192].
________________________________________
Comment 14: Line 353: Which authors are we talking about? See: "Kowalska-Pyzalska et al. (2021)"
Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. I have clarified the authorship attribution in the manuscript. The revised text specifies the authors being referred to and can be found on page [9-10], line [309-311].
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Rewrite introduction with subheadings that explain the “Back ground introduction of your study”, “aim of your study”, “a brief statement of method”, and “research gap” that elaborate the beneficial goal of your study. Everything that is important in the manuscript must be reflected in the “Introduction” section.
2. The author must present detailed questionnaires and literature support for each item.
3. (Line 246-253) The author presented three hypotheses, suggests drawing a research structure Figure, and confirms that relevant literature supports the research structure.
4. How does the author verify whether the above three hypotheses are true? It is recommended that the author further explain clearly
5. The Chinese fonts presented in Figure 2-4 in this article are recommended to be adjusted to the English interface.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOK
Author Response
Response to Reviewer B Comments
1. Summary
Thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing my work, and your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of the paper. Below, I have addressed each of your comments and outlined the revisions made to the manuscript.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: Rewrite introduction with subheadings that explain the “Background introduction of your study,” “Aim of your study,” “A brief statement of method,” and “Research gap” that elaborate the beneficial goal of your study. Everything that is important in the manuscript must be reflected in the “Introduction” section.
Response 1:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I agree with your suggestion to provide a more structured introduction with subheadings. I have revised the introduction section to include the following subheadings: "Background Introduction of the Study," "Aim of the Study," "Brief Statement of Method," and "Research Gap." This revision clarifies the study's context, objectives, methodology, and the specific gap it addresses. These changes can be found on page 1-2, lines 19-60 of the revised manuscript.
________________________________________
Comment 2: The author must present detailed questionnaires and literature support for each item.
Response 2:
Agree. I have accordingly revised the manuscript to include detailed questionnaires and literature support for each item in Appendix B. This addition provides comprehensive insights into how each questionnaire item is grounded in the literature. These changes can be found in page 24, Appendix A, lines 624-625 and page 26-27, Appendix B, lines 625-720 of the revised manuscript.
________________________________________
Comment 3: (Line 246-253) The author presented three hypotheses, suggests drawing a research structure Figure, and confirms that relevant literature supports the research structure.
Response 3:
Thank you for the suggestion. I have added a research structure figure that visually represents the study's hypotheses and their relationships. I have also ensured that relevant literature supports this structure, as indicated in the manuscript. This figure and its corresponding discussion can be found on page 7, lines 237-267.
2
________________________________________
Comment 4: How does the author verify whether the above three hypotheses are true? It is recommended that the author further explain clearly.
Response 4:
Thank you for highlighting this. I have added a detailed explanation in the manuscript, describing how the Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) method was used to verify the three hypotheses. This explanation includes necessity and sufficiency analyses for each hypothesis. These changes can be found on page 9, paragraph Y, lines 292-304.
________________________________________
Comment 5: The Chinese fonts presented in Figure 2-4 in this article are recommended to be adjusted to the English interface.
Response 5:
I appreciate your attention to detail. I have revised Figures 2-4 to use the English interface, ensuring consistency with the rest of the manuscript. These updated figures can be found on page19-20.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPrijať v súčasnej podobe.
