Success Factors in Management of Development Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have conducted a research on different aspects of managing development projects. The manuscript is difficult to read and follow and has many weaknesses and should be restructured. If the authors are given a chance to revise their work, I expect to see major changes in the manuscript. My comments are as follows:

• The title should be revised. There is no need to have so many keywords in the title.
• Line 18, all words should be lowercase.
• Table 1, add headings for each column.
• Section 1.3 is redundant and should be removed.
• Section 1.4, how did the authors come up with hypotheses without presenting a comprehensive literature review?
• Lines 117-128, there are very short paragraphs and not suitable for a research article.
• Table 2 and lines 159-214 are related to the literature review, not methodology.
• More elaborations and justifications are needed for the chosen and methods for analyses in the methodology section.
• Line 231, who many variables?
• Table 3 can be moved to an appendix.
• Lines 278-280, short paragraph. There are many other short paragraphs in the manuscript. Authors should carefully revise all of them.
• Line 285, cross-referencing is required. “Later” is not suitable.
• More explanations are needed for Figures 3, 4, and 5. Also, their quality is poor.
• are lines 474, 504 sub-sections?
• Section 3 is result, section 4 is discussion, and again section 5 is result? It is unacceptable. I believe that section 5 should be the conclusion. However, it begins with the objectives. Research objectives should be presented in the Introduction, not the Conclusion.
• Section 5 is too long.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It may be better to editing tables and number of figures at them.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank You for the opportunity of reading this article.

General statements about the article:

-> The article discusses sustainability, risk management, and effectiveness in the management of development projects. Thus the topic and scope of the article are interesting, actual, and highly desirable.

-> The article content suite to Sustainability journal scope.

-> Keywords are correctly proposed.

-> Organization of the paper is clear and correct.

-> Literature review is based on 28 positions. They are related to article content.

-> The quality of the presentation is sufficient.

 

However, I indicated the following elements to revision:

#1

The abstract should be revised according to the journal's recommendations. The main findings should be additionally quantified and discussed.

#2

In the present form, 28 positions are in the literature review. However, there are no actual positions. Thus I recommend adding at least 4 new positions(from the 2020-2022 year)

 

#3

For section 3 please justify why the Pearson coefficient was applied to assess correlation.

 

#4

Please also revise the manuscript regarding the personal way of addressing in the text. Please avoid and replace we" or "our" with the impersonal manner of addressing. The text will sound much more professional.

 

Technical issue:

Please add required additional information like data availability statement, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments and the manuscript can be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

Now the article is suitable to publication in present form.