Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Construction Work Progress: An On-Site Analysis from the Sarawak Construction Project, Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There is no justification for the selection of the Sarawak as a case study location.
2. Page 3, Line 51 and Figure 2- what is the message that the author would like to bring it up? 
3. Page 4, line 121- The justification to conduct the study is weak by using 1 road construction research done in 2016. 
4. Page 5, line 170-182, this discussion is based on the Sarawak case study or it is the author's opinions? Please justify. 
5. Saaty (1995) is not on the reference list.
6. Please justify the sample size to conduct AHP. 
7. The composition of the respondents is biased. 
8. Page 8, line 275, Define matured age and how many respondents are not matured in the samples since the author used "almost all" in the discussion. 
9. The author must justify the validity and reliability of the samples before proceeding to AHP.
10. Table 3, Figure 4, and Table 7 contents are missing in the literature. 

 

General:

The AHP is a decision-making tool to help decision-makers to find one that best suits the situation. In this study, the author fails to demonstrate the AHP decision-making functions to provide solution(s) for the problem. Page 4, line 112- in fact, the aim of the research is not a decision-making study and therefore the question will be: why AHP is used? 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The contents could be bit more focused on particular type(s) construction projects. Affiliations and contact details are not provided for all authors.

It would be useful to have some discussion on effects of COVID-19 on different types (in terms of nature of work, size and duration) of projects, their implications on outcome and lessons learnt from them. 

Author Response

Take note on Reviewers’ comment. The affiliations and contacts details for  all authors have been provided.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors determine the effects of COVID-19 pandemic to project work progress in Sarawak construction industry. The novelty of this paper is still not significant enough to publish on “Sustainability”. Due to some issues that need improvement before publication, therefore my decision is acceptance with major revisions.

Here are my comments for improving manuscript:

1. Structure of manuscript is good. However, data may not reliable and method is not new.
2. Introduction:
   • The introduction is too long, there are some parts repeat with the second section. Thus, please write more concise.
   • The introduction provides background information and set the context. However, it is clearer for reader if authors state research questions and research objectives.
3. Methodology:
   • Methodology is appropriate. Please provide questionnaire.
   • Questionnaires are very subjective because it is developed by authors. It seems that authors have not conducted a pre-survey based on opinions of construction professional to pre-qualify questionnaire (criteria, structure, questions…) before carry out a wide-survey.
   • Statistical findings are not reliable because a number of respondents is too small
   • Moreover, AHP method is not new.
4. Discussion
   • Research findings can be good lessons learned construction management not only in Malaysia but also other countries. Please add a discussion section discussing thoroughly research limitations and these valuable lessons.
5. Conclusion: conclusion will be improve by emphasizing the research contributions and future work
6. References: references are poor. Please consider to add more new ISI ones (need a discussion and citation in the body of manuscript) to improve this reference section.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Page 2, line 46, still, there is no justification for the selection of Sarawak as a case study location. Response from the author is not accepted as the sick projects did not show the criticality/ necessity of using Sarawak as a case study. The Figure in the response report did not highlight the the Sarawak sick projects status compared to other states. A critical justification(s) is(are) needed.
2. Page 2, line 52, the author should further explain Figure 2. Explanation in the response report should be in the manuscript. 
3. Page 5, line 149. The reason for highlighting this citation is because the study is a road project conducted in 2016. Firstly, the project scope is different for the author's study. Secondly, the project is outdated. Please look for latest references related to Pandemic etc which is more relevant to the author's scope. 
4. Page 6, Line 212-224. Please take note that literature supposed to be supported by secondary resources, the author's opinions are supporting elaboration but should not be used as the main discussion facts. The author may further explain his experience in the results and discussion section, but not in the literature. 
5. "Please justify the sample size to conduct AHP". This statement means: How do you know your sample size is enough? Please explain. 
6. Page 10, line 318, Please look into the definition of "matured". Please refer to: Maturity is not a matter of age, but instead, of how you choose to respond and react to various life situations. It is essentially a level of mental development or wisdom that has a bearing on all areas of an individual's life, right from their conduct to their relationship with others. If the author cannot explain the situation, please remove ambiguos phrase in the manuscript. 
7. Page 9, line 311, The Cronbach Alpha's coefficient is an internal consistency. It does not represent a percentage of reliability!
8. Table 3, Figure 4, and Table 7 contents are missing in the literature. The author should explain the factors/ elements in the literature, justifying their sources and its relevancy to the author's study. 

General

1. The explanation in the responses report should be discussed in the manuscript.
2. The author did not answer why AHP is needed in this study.

Note:

1. The author should discuss the above comments with the co-authors before resubmission.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The novelty of this paper is still significant enough to publish on “Sustainability”. Therefore my decision is an acceptance for a publication.

Author Response

Thanks

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Page 2, line 54-59, strongly suggest removing Figure 2. In 2 attempts, the author fails to explain the Figure and demonstrate the relationship of the Figure with the construction work progress.
2. Page 3, line 94, the selection of Sarawak as a case study is justified. However, as mentioned in the previous comment, Figure 3  did not highlight the Sarawak sick projects status as compared to other states. The needs and "criticality" of using the Sarawak state is not reflected in the Figure 3. 
3. The justification of using AHP in the author response should be included in the manuscript. 

Author Response

Item 1: Has been removed as advice 

Item 2: Critical project in Sarawak has been compared with the critical project for the whole of Malaysia. The need for the study has also been explained.

Item 3: The justification for using AHP has been included in the manuscript. 

Thanks