PONE-D-22-20651Analysis of urban residents' online car-hailing journey characteristics based on the MGWR modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically, the reviewers recommend major revisions which include adding new and recent references, an explicit explanations of research findings, explanation of the novelty of research, language and grammar issues and others. You can find the details of reviewers' reports as attached to this e-mail.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 16 October 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eda Ustaoglu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS journals require authors to make all data necessary to replicate their study’s findings publicly available without restriction at the time of publication. Please see our Data Availability policy at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. As such, please make the full specific dataset used in this study available by either A) uploading the full dataset as supplementary information files, or B) including a URL link in your Data Availability Statement and Methods section to where the full dataset can be accessed.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. We note that Figures 1, 3, 4 and 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3, 4 and 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper improves the method and data to explore the issue of urban online car-hailing. It reflects a large amount of work, but still has distance from a qualified paper.

Major revisions:

1. The paper is poorly expressed in language. Pay attention to the mixed use of past and present tense, especially, in the same sentence.

2. There are too many abbreviations in the paper, which seriously affects the reading as well as the understanding of the contents.

3. The introduction needs to be reorganized to highlight the value and meaning of the research. Too much discussion of variables selection is not appropriate for the introduction.

4. The discussion of the results is mainly on the sign of the variables, and the analysis of the causes of the effects is not in-depth. The number of variables of interest are too much, resulting in unfocused findings.

5. The conclusion is brief and the policy recommendations lack relevance and application.

6. The title is not specific enough and does not indicate the core contents of the study. The introduction section points out "the purpose of this study is to examine the spatiotemporal relationship between online cab-hailing and the urban built environment", but the title is a study of "characteristics", which is confusing. It is recommended to revise it to cover and reflect your core research contents.

Other comments:

7. Unify the expressions of the core terminology in the whole paper.

(1) Such as: car-hailing or cab-hailing? Please explain to me the difference between the two concepts and why you chose this one and not the other? If the two concepts refer to the same content, please unify the expressions in the text directly.

(2) DiDi has an English version of its website, please check the English spelling of DiDi. Please unify the expressions in the whole text.

8. L67: What are the others referring to?

9. L141-L147:

(1) There is actually another peak(13:00-14:00) in Figure 2, why is this not discussed?.

(2) MP and EP? In the case of abbreviations for the first time, please use the whole words.

(3) The presentation of the content is illogical, and the English expression level is very poor.Please have your paper copy edited by a native speaker. Pay attention to the mixed use of past and present tense, especially, in the same sentence. Be consistent.

10. Section 2.2 contains too much contents and the logic is not clear enough. Please rearrange the logic of Section 2 and divide it into a proper chapters.

11. L229: (1)Where are the Tables A1 and A2? (2)Poor English proficiency and confusing use of tenses in this paragraph.

12. L237~L248: (1)Lack of standardization in table designing. (2)Please correspond to Table 1 for the order of variables in Table 2. (3)What is the difference between R-square and R2 in Table 2? (4)L241: EP? OR EPP? (5)It is not appropriate to discuss the conclusions of Table 4 here. (6)Please explain the meaning of AICc in the note part of Table 2. (7)Please explain on what software or algorithm these results are based?

13. Some of the details:

L124: I don't think it's appropriate for the contents to appear in this sentence: "rich and diverse internal land use variables (variables?)".

Line126: I don't think the contens of the brackets, (such as Jinniu and Chenghua), make sense.

L140, L147: A period is missing at the end of the sentence.

L159: [Please check that I have understood this section correctly.]?

L194: distributions

L197: Table1, the explained variables are usually placed before the explanatory variables.

The Table 4 and Table 5 are misplaced. When discussing tables, please place the table below the text.

Conclusion: Please note the use of punctuation in the whole test.

Reviewer #2: I am glad to review and assess this exciting article, entitled, "Analysis of urban residents' online car-hailing journey characteristics based on the MGWR model”. The organization of this article is good and satisfactory. The Introduction section, and methodology portions are adequate. I suggest the authors improve these parts overall to enhance the work quality. As suggested, I recommend that authors do a little more work and add the latest literature to support the study. I accept this manuscript after major revision, as I have recommended. Some valuable comments are given below. Please do a little work and improve the manuscript

1. The manuscript needs language, grammar, and syntactic editing. The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker.

2. The more suitable title should be selected for the article

3. Also, find some new related references which should add to the 1st and 2nd parts.

4. Must add much more explanations and interpretations for the results, which are not enough. It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before (more justification is needed).

5. Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper and the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. It would be best if you enhanced your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value-added of your paper, and the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: KASHIF ABBASS

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-22-20651R1Impact of built environment on residential online car-hailing trips: based on MGWR modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As highlighted by the reviewer, there are only minor issues that need to be revised. You can find the revision requests in the Reviewer's report.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 November 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eda Ustaoglu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper has been greatly improved, both in terms of language and logic of expression. The authors' efforts regarding the revision of the second edition are worthy of recognition. In order to improve the quality of the paper, I would like to make the following comments:

1. L39-L47: The discussion of the advantages of DiDi data should be placed in the literature review section. I suggest putting it after L133, the discussion on data limitations. Start a separate paragraph.

2. In the introduction section, three difficulties are presented (L48-L63) and this research has been improved in three ways (L64-L76). Please reorganize the presentation of this part so that the research difficulties and your contribution are presented separately and correspond to each other.

3. L64-L65: This is the content of your research, not the purpose. You can directly indicate in the opening section that the contribution of this paper is reflected in the following three areas.

4. L73-L76: A discussion of the model results would be inappropriate here.

5. L76-L80: This is the purpose of your research, please state it on a separate line. Add your content chapter arrangement in this part.

6. L134-L139: The expression is fragmented and not well connected to the literature. Please integrate this section with the "contribution" in the introduction section and highlight your innovation in this section.

7. L239："MGWR uses different bandwidths for each variable, unlike the classical GWR model, which requires different levels of spatial smoothing for each variable;" I think what you are trying to convey is that MGWR can “requires different levels of spatial smoothing for each variable”, but the subject of the second half of this sentence is GWR. Please verify if the meaning of this sentence matches what you are trying to express.

8. It is best not to have a figure in the discussion section about the results. Please put Figure 5 and related contents in another appropriate place. It is suggested that Chapter 3 be discussed in several subsections, and the discussion on Figure 5 could be a subsection of Chapter 3.

Other comments:

9. ! Please be responsible for your own paper, read it carefully and correct all details of the mistakes.

(1) L46, L318: A period is missing at the end of the sentence.

(2) The content of the form should be standardized: Note that the number of decimal points in the tables is the same for the same category of data, so that it doesn't look cluttered.

(3) Make sure that the first letter of the same content is the same in different tables.

(4) Please unify the citation of all references, such as L215, etc.

(5) L226-L228: The letters of the formula and the explanation should correspond in case. j is a lowercase letter.

(6) Please check the text for all grammatical errors. E.g. L267: S1 and S2 Tables show …..; L271: shows?

10. L123: “Second,…..”

11. L149: Two “study area” in one sentence is wordy. The former emphasizes the object of study and the latter emphasizes the area.

12. It is not necessary to emphasize "in this paper” or “in this study". E.g. L163 and L166.

13. L168: too many “and”

14. Use "(1) Variable 1." or other tag before each variable explanation so that it corresponds to your variables selections in the first paragraph.

15. L235-L237: It should be placed before table1.

16. In order to make it easier for readers to distinguish, I suggest writing “Morning peak 1 model (pick-ups), Morning peak 2 model (drop-offs) ’’in Table 2, so as in Table 3-5.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments-round2.docx

PONE-D-22-20651R2Impact of built environment on residential online car-hailing trips: based on MGWR modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr Tian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There are only minor issues need to be revised as recommended by the reviewer. Please check the reviewer's report for these issues. Your manuscript will be accepted after revisions are completed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eda Ustaoglu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article has met the criteria for acceptance. After modifying the following details, it is recommended to accept. (Authors are advised to check the article carefully for detailed errors)

L62 and L63 are suggested in the same paragraph

L115: two periods at the end of the sentence.

L115 and L116 should be in the same paragraph

L248: S1 and S2 show

L334: Table 5, there's an extra vertical line to the right of the table

Others…

Also, check the use of Spaces in the whole paper， there should be only one space between words.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Impact of built environment on residential online car-hailing trips: based on MGWR model

PONE-D-22-20651R3

Dear Dr. Tian,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Eda Ustaoglu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: