Analysis of Consumers’ Electric Vehicle Purchase Intentions: An Expansion of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In the research results, most hypotheses need to present the discussion with literatures, and it is suggested that they can be reorganized systematically.
2. As above, both theoretical and practical significance need to be reorganized.
3. In terms of theoretical significance, in addition to echoing previous studies with the presented results, what is the specific value of this study?
4. English proofreading is needed.
5. The VIF results of this study should be explained in detail.
6.The author should provide further statistical CMV results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission. With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions. The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As I understand it, the authors of this paper want to highlight the work devoted to analyzing consumer electric vehicle purchase intentions using an extension of the theory of planned behavior to the case in Turkey. It seems to me that this issue is quite exciting and slightly covered in the literature, but the author does not give enough reviews—inappropriate review title.
Initially, the hypothesis was built on the advantages of using electric vehicles from the aspect of clean energy use, green production and consumption, and EV adoption with a TPB-based model to predict consumer EV purchase intentions in Turkey; however, the conclusions and suggestions are different.
The abstract is not well written and wordy, while the main idea of the review is expressed in passing. I recommend that the author writes more directly and specifically about the topic mentioned. The introduction provided has provided an overview of why this review is essential. However, it is not related to the conclusions given. Some of the limitations given at the beginning are not very suitable for building the premise of the presented findings.
Section 2 describes the general principles of the literature review on TPB, EPBT, and hypotheses that their development should be substantially reduced. On the other hand, we practically do not discuss some of the discussions about detailed references to become the primary reference which will be developed later. The emphasis of the discussion focus that will be used needs to be shown. The author needs to show the main weaknesses of the references used and how improvements are required.
Section 3 describes the methodology used. The display of demographic findings is too crowded and unclear. The author should classify according to the objectives to be achieved and, at the same time, explain the classification related to the discussion and the main purpose of the review. I believe it is necessary to change based on each goal to be achieved.
Sections 4-7 are central, but their contents are minimal. I see no discussion of the underlying issues related to consumer purchase intention analysis. Table 5 presents the load factor, but I do not see where it comes from. This section needs to be expanded substantially. I also recommend that authors consider the principles by which they classify all work in this area. These principles and ideas for this article should be explained at the beginning of the section. It seems to me that Table 3 is not informative because the author systematized the final expression, while the author's approach was not considered. In addition, the author does not explain the impact of this analysis on buying interest. Based on the foregoing, in my opinion, it is necessary to carry out an in-depth revision of the submitted manuscript because, in this form, the manuscript has a less significant value.
Sections 8-9 are the conclusion. From the findings and recommendations given, it seems that there are still things that are not related to the intended purpose. I suggest that the author can re-elaborate on the things that have been found from the goals to be achieved so that the direction of writing this article becomes more straightforward and linear.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission. With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions. The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
We have revisited the complete manuscript. Thank you very much again for your time and effort.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission and your valuable feedback to improve the quality of manuscript. Regards, Authors