Service Quality of Bus Performance in Asia: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled „Service Quality of Bus Performance in Asia: A Systematic Literature Review and Conceptual Framework“.

I have a few remarks that you hopefully find helpful to further improve your manuscript:

 

• Overall, the manuscript needs academic proofreading as it is partly not possible to follow arguments due to language issues.
• For correspondence you should use a professional university email address.
• The abstract is not convincing and does not outline the need for conducting an SLR in this field. It is also confusing that you mention that existing research does not cover specific fields (e.g. engineering, social sciences etc.) and therefore you want to conduct an SLR. This is contradictive and is more of an argument for some (empirical) research in this domain.
• Overall, not only the need but also the clear objective is not consistently articulated - it remains unclear if the study has a regional focus (on Asia) or not. Partly it is outlined that there is a focus on urban areas, partly not.
• It remains also unclear why you have chosen 2017 as a starting point for your sample.
• Figure 1 is very confusing and not possible to trace back the numbers you are providing (e.g. how to derive is at the third number n = 2568 cannot be calculated from the numbers provided).
• In the results you start describing dimensions that you seemingly have derived from the literature. However, this is also hard to follow without previous introduction.
• The title also promises a „conceptual framework“ which however does not appear in the manuscript.
• The „recommendation“ in the end are rather vague and not clearly derived avenues for further research from your research.
• Overall, I am missing very much the „SO WHAT“ of your analysis. The results are purely descriptive, seemingly also quiet disconnected in part.

I hope this comments help to further improve your research. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your email dated 2 June 2022 enclosing the reviewers' comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

We have addressed the editorial points and as a corresponding author, I confirm that all reference is relevant to the contents of the manuscripts, any revisions to the manuscripts were marked up using “Track Changes” and our responses are given in a point-to-point manner for each reviewer. Please see the attachment. 

We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 1 is blurred and mixed with the numbers of the lines.
Figure 1: You can enlarge the letters.
Figure 3: Number 277 is hidden behind the figure.
Line 33: "urbanization n due": what is "n"?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your email dated 2 June 2022 enclosing the reviewers' comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

We have addressed the editorial points and as a corresponding author, I confirm that all reference is relevant to the contents of the manuscripts, any revisions to the manuscripts were marked up using “Track Changes” and our responses are given in a point-to-point manner for each reviewer. Please see the attachment. 

We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for letting me review this very interesting paper. This manuscript discusses topic related to Service Quality of public transportation. I want to know how authors understand "quality" in public transportation. The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous review studies and of the working hypotheses and highlight the novel contributions of their research. The implications for research, theory, practice and society are not clear enough though I can see that these aspects can be elaborated further. Please add more information about limitations and future directions.

I look forward to read the final version.

Good Luck.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your email dated 2 June 2022 enclosing the reviewers' comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

We have addressed the editorial points and as a corresponding author, I confirm that all reference is relevant to the contents of the manuscripts, any revisions to the manuscripts were marked up using “Track Changes” and our responses are given in a point-to-point manner for each reviewer. Please see the attachment. 

We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for working on the provided points and improving the manuscript.

Best,

Reviewer