Czech Drivers’ Glare Perception Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overview and general recommendation:
The paper investigates the prevalence of on-road glare and its associations with drivers' attitudes in a sample of Czech drivers.
The current study is on a topic of relevance and could be of general interest to the journal readers. The paper is overall well written, and much of it is well described. However, as it is currently defined, the recommendation is to reject it. I explain my concerns in more detail below.
Major comments:
1. Introduction
The purpose of the research is expressed in the abstract and in the introduction.
The paper is well explained but I would recommend avoiding references to the internet forums.
2. Methodology
My major concern with this article is about the sample. I really doubt the advantage of using 6 truck or bus drivers, and 7 motorcycle or moped drivers. This sample is not large enough for their responses to be meaningful. I would recommend that the study focuses on car drivers only.
3. Discussion
In the discussion section, it would be recommended to add more references comparing the results with that existing in the literature. This point must be well explained and related because it is the real justification of the work done.
If the authors removed the sample part that can distort the results, I would be happy to review it again.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for the review; please see the attachment for our response.
With kind regards
Lucie Viktorová
on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Name of the paper: Czech drivers' glare perception survey
This paper uses an online survey of 553 motor vehicle drivers who experienced glare on an almost daily basis. They revealed that about 61% of them wanted the full road view. Authors derived an association between the preferred part of the lighting color spectrum and the perceived glare source color and drivers' ignorance towards the light sources. They stressed and recommended driver education in the areas of automotive lighting and glare prevention.
General Observation:
(a) The paper attempts empirical analysis using online mode for the collected data. However, the data reliability and validity are not clear.
(b) Please refer to Table 9. General questions about light and glare in the context of driving (absolute frequencies). The reliability of this data is not carried out. Authors may employ Logistics Regression analysis and ascertain the results.
(c) Explanatory analysis may be supported by factor loading to achieve accuracy in the result.
(d) More in-depth statistical analysis is required to generalize the results.
(e) Since the vehicle drivers are keeping them away from academics, the questionnaire must have pilot studies to test the questions and the level of understanding must be gauged before the actual study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for the review; please see the attachment for our response.
With kind regards
Lucie Viktorová
on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The novelty and contribution of this study is limited. From my humble view, this is only a questionnaire and its result analysis. The authors should summarize:
(1) Their research motivation and importance;
(2) The contributions of this study
(3) The specific insight from the results
2. An example of the questionnaire should be given, e.g., it is in a hard-copy or online format?
3. Did 606 respondents filled out all the questions? If not, how to handle the unanswered part?
4. There is no significance analysis, but only some empirical distribution for the result analysis, making the findings less convincing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for the review; please see the attachment for our response.
With kind regards
Lucie Viktorová
on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author's revision of the questions raised in the first review did not reach the expected level and effect.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for revising and re-submitting the manuscript. Most of the previous concerns have been resolved and the manuscript has been improved a lot. Some minor English typos exist in the added content and should be fixed before publication, e.g., in lines 377, 388, 402.
