The Markets of Green Cars of Three Countries: Analysis Using Lotka–Volterra and Bertalanffy–Pütter Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The issue of the modeling of green cars market is relevant to the contemporary times.  

In general, the manuscript has been prepared very honestly. The overall idea of the paper is very interesting as well as the described research subject.

The authors analyzed different approaches to solving problems.

The research literature, statistical analysis, and methodology of this article are good.

The government policies to support environmentally friendly cars by subsidies and privileges sustainable economic development described in present work may be provided to other countries for reference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is interesting manuscript about how diesel scandal influenced the new cars market in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

First of all, I would like to pay attention to introduction. In my opinion, this part of the manuscript must has more deeper analysis of literature regarding not only diesel scandal, but in more broadly view (car industry changes, environmentally friendly car, how these changes affect production of different cars and etc.).

At the same abstract also must be improved. Abstract must present short summary of the paper (what is about paper, methods, results).

Lines 64-79. This part must be rewrite in more mathematical way. It must consist also the formulas regarding the five-parameter Bertalanffy-Pütter (BP) differential equation, generalized Lotka-Volterra (LV) differential equation. I suggest to merge this part with the information provided in lines 101-184. All methodological part must be present consistently with scientific logic.

Lines 80-84 present "the materials"; I suggest do not write in scientific paper, that the author(s) used Intel i7 core and Microsoft Excel, algebra, statistical analysis and etc. This part do not add value to scientific manuscript.

Tables and Figures must have the names which better express the information they consist. Also all visual information must has the source, for example, Table 1 has wrong name and do not has source. I think this Table present the annual car registration... Table 2 can be presented in landscape orientation, because now is it difficult to read information in that table (also I suggest do not used letter E in numbers; please provide in more appropriate view how such kinds of data is provided in scientific literature). All visual sources must have the appropriate name and, if needed, the explanation what is presented (as a note), for ex.: all figures.

Table 4: what does the number 3 means (scenario "Pairwise..." CH line year 2017; "Diesel..." AT line year 2014, CH line year 2013, etc.)?

All "Results" part has a lot of technical information regarding the methodology. I suggest highlight the results and present them in context compared to similar studies (as far as possible depending on the characteristics of the study).

At the end of the analysis, the author(s) can summarize (in a few sentences) the may findings and the results (do not present the same in the Discussion and conclusion part. In the conclusion author can provide more detailed view of the research results.

Lines 366-370 present the view about startups; how this information related to the study performed?

As the author argued, that this article is the part master thesis, I suggest rewrite this manuscript in more appropriate way for scholars and the manuscript must be like scientific article (see the examples from other journals of MDPI). At this moment it is like a part from bigger research without any logical consistent.

Also the manuscript has some technical error (letters, punctuation, etc.). Why at the end of the manuscript is presented the same visual information as in the text? All references must be presented according to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I found your paper very interesting. Especially the question of methodology, which I did not know, and it was interesting to read about it.

The introduction is clear and I liked the subdivision of it very much, which makes the paper very easy to read and understand.

The methodology is exhaustively presented, in my opinion it is given a very exaggerated focus, which makes the conclusions could go much further.

Even in the conclusions the focus is on the methodology, and I would like to see more discussion of the results around the literature.

In my view the paper requires some work as regards the excessive focus on methodology and less on its theoretical contribution.
It would be advisable to have a greater investment on the part of the authors in the discussion of the results in the light of theory, and not in the light of methodology.

Therefore, both in the methodology (its presentation and explanation) and in the conclusions, the authors can greatly improve their contribution. Making the paper more interesting in terms of theme and contribution, decreasing the focus on the methodology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the second version of the manuscript showed that the authors made a lot of improvements and at this moment this manuscript is generally well-written and has a proper structure with appropriate research design.  Finally, the discussion section explain some outlook to the innovation in the car industry.

At the end, I would like to ask the authors to add the conclusion part to this manuscript and to summarize the main findings of the research and pointing at future directions for the possible research.

Also, there is some lost data or etc. between lines 322-324.

Now I believe that this article will be interesting to the general audience of the Journal and to the other scholars.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf