Construction Procurement Selection Criteria: A Review and Research Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article entitled Construction procurement selection criteria: A review and research agenda is currently relevant. The meaning of the article is important, as there is currently no uniform mechanism for selecting appropriate selection criteria for construction procurement. In my opinion, the article contains a number of conclusory considerations, from which it is impossible to draw any unified conclusion. The authors subsequently point to the deepening of further research, which, in my opinion, will be very important for the further creation of a unified system for selecting suitable criteria in the construction industry. After incorporating comments and further scientific expansion, I recommend publishing the article Construction procurement selection criteria: A review and research agenda in the journal Sustainability. My comments are as follows:
1. On the first page of the article, the authors left the colored text underlining (yellow and green). It needs to be removed.
2. On line 61 there is an erroneous reference to the literature. It needs to be fixed.
3. The authors write on line 79 that With construction procurement systems changing so rapidly in recent years. Could the authors tell why the construction procurement system is changing so quickly? Which significantly affects the procurement process or what factors?
4. The authors write on line 131 The concept of procurement selection criteria was defined by its various synonyms. Who selected individual synonyms within the concept of procurement selection criteria? Was the selection made on the basis of the subjective assessment of the authors, or was the selection made on the basis of some scientific basis?
5. Table 1 is shown on lines 142, 145 and 153. Apparently there was a technical problem, it should be deleted from line 145 and 153.
6. On line 184 there is an erroneous reference to the literature. It needs to be fixed.
7. On line 208 and 209, the reference to the citation is missing for citation in parentheses. It needs to be fixed.
8. On line 212, the reference to the image is missing, as the authors write it. The description of images 2 and 3 in the text of the article is missing. It needs to be fixed.
9. On line 222, the reference to the image is missing, as the authors write it. It needs to be fixed.
10. In picture no. 3 would be good to explain why some authors are shown in black and some authors in red color.
11. Image no. 4 needs to be enlarged or improve its quality. The expressions in the picture are not easy to read.
12. In lines 244, 246, 292 and 300 there are errors in the cited sources. It needs to be fixed.
13. In lines 325, the authors write that In the meantime, collaborative procurement systems such as PPP, PFI started their implementation in the construction industry. It is convenient to spell out the abbreviations PPP and PFI.
14. On line 337, the reference to the image is missing at the end of the sentence. It needs to be fixed.
15. In the chapter PSC identification process, the authors write on line 396 that Generally, survey questionnaires were distributed to key stakeholders to identify PSC, and/or assess each criterion. However, the authors do not further mention how many questionnaires they sent to the survey, how many were returned to them, what resulted from these questionnaires. It is possible to draw some conclusions from these questionnaires?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for constructive and valuable feedback. We have revised the paper accordingly. Here are our notes to the comments.
- On the first page of the article, the authors left the colored text underlining (yellow and green). It needs to be removed.
Sorry for this oversight. The coloured texts are removed.
- On line 61 there is an erroneous reference to the literature. It needs to be fixed.
All references are checked for errors.
- The authors write on line 79 that With construction procurement systems changing so rapidly in recent years.Could the authors tell why the construction procurement system is changing so quickly? Which significantly affects the procurement process or what factors?
Since clients and stakeholders endeavour to choose the procurement system that fits the needs of the business, societal and environmental issues, and sustainability, construction procurement systems changing so rapidly in recent years.
- The authors write on line 131 The concept of procurement selection criteria was defined by its various synonyms.Who selected individual synonyms within the concept of procurement selection criteria? Was the selection made on the basis of the subjective assessment of the authors, or was the selection made on the basis of some scientific basis?
The synonyms were discussed and defined among the researchers. As presented in the research method, during Step 1, we did several rounds to confirm the selection criteria. Synonyms of procurement criteria were jotted down in the first round of screening the papers. They were decided and confirmed after a double-blind control test.
- Table 1 is shown on lines 142, 145 and 153. Apparently there was a technical problem, it should be deleted from line 145 and 153.
The redundant table is deleted.
- On line 184 there is an erroneous reference to the literature. It needs to be fixed.
The reference is fixed.
- On line 208 and 209, the reference to the citation is missing for citation in parentheses. It needs to be fixed.
It is fixed.
- On line 212, the reference to the image is missing, as the authors write it. The description of images 2 and 3 in the text of the article is missing. It needs to be fixed.
It is fixed.
- On line 222, the reference to the image is missing, as the authors write it. It needs to be fixed.
It is fixed.
- In picture no. 3 would be good to explain why some authors are shown in black and some authors in red color.
It is noted that a significant number of the articles used the criteria identified in Love et al. (1998), as highlighted in red.
- Image no. 4 needs to be enlarged or improve its quality. The expressions in the picture are not easy to read.
It is enlarged.
- In lines 244, 246, 292 and 300 there are errors in the cited sources. It needs to be fixed.
They are fixed.
- In lines 325, the authors write that In the meantime, collaborative procurement systems such as PPP, PFI started their implementation in the construction industry. It is convenient to spell out the abbreviations PPP and PFI.
Both acronyms are spelled out.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a review about construction procurement selection criteria. In general, the paper is written carefully and comprehensively. However, some images need further beautification to make them easier to read, for example, Figures 8 and 9.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for constructive and valuable feedback. We have revised the paper accordingly. Here are our notes to the comments.
The paper deals with a review about construction procurement selection criteria. In general, the paper is written carefully and comprehensively. However, some images need further beautification to make them easier to read, for example, Figures 8 and 9.
Both figures are adjusted for readability.
Reviewer 3 Report
I will like to thank the reviewer for giving me this opportunity to review this interesting work. The authors did a great job and some points should be improved to make it clear and understandable for readers before acceptance for publication.
the abstract is well presented
introduction
please the authors should point out the originality of their as presented here not perceptible
after comparing the previous what do they bring as a novelty?
please the authors should work on table 1 as presented in the next is not readable
the legends are not readable in Figure 4
there is missing citing literature please insert it line 300
the conclusion is too long and contains long sentences please the authors should shorten it to make the sentences understandable
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for constructive and valuable feedback. We have revised the paper accordingly. Here are our notes to the comments.
please the authors should point out the originality of their as presented here not perceptible
Researchers seek state-of-the-art PSC to match the unfolding project context (e.g., value for money (Smith et al., 2004), payment mode (Ling et al., 2004), and building information modeling (Naoum and Egbu, 2016)). While scholars recognize the need for considering modern concepts in PSC identification, limited research focuses on updating PSC and analyzing the trend of contemporary PSC.
after comparing the previous what do they bring as a novelty?
Future research directions are proposed in accordance with the findings.
please the authors should work on table 1 as presented in the next is not readable
The table is adjusted for readability.
the legends are not readable in Figure 4
The figure is adjusted for readability.
there is missing citing literature please insert it line 300
It is fixed now. Thanks.
the conclusion is too long and contains long sentences please the authors should shorten it to make the sentences understandable
The section is proofread to deliver the information clearly. Thanks
Reviewer 4 Report
The article good with a good contribution to knowledge
- The table should be in journal format, not a figure
- There is an error in the references
- Why did the author choose the articles from 1998 to 2019?
- What is the implication of this study to the body of knowledge?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for constructive and valuable feedback. We have revised the paper accordingly. Here are our notes to the comments.
- The table should be in journal format, not a figure
It is adjusted now.
- There is an error in the references
They are fixed now. Thanks.
- Why did the author choose the articles from 1998 to 2019?
The starting year was selected because, even though the term “selection criteria” first appeared in the 1980s (NEDO, 1985), the primary scientific literature push began around 1998. The initial search was conducted in 2020. Therefore, the time interval is between 1998 to 2019.
- What is the implication of this study to the body of knowledge?
256 PSC have been identified and analyzed. The key themes of debates on PSC from the extant studies shed light on how PSC could be identified and analyzed to date. The categorization of the PSC was addressed. The paper proposes future research directions according to the review findings.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors appropriately incorporated my comments into the article. They improved the grammar of the article as well as the quality of images and individual expressions. Nevertheless, there are still a few errors in the article that need to be corrected. After incorporating the comments, I recommend publishing the article Construction procurement selection criteria: A review and research agenda in the journal Sustainability. My comments are as follows:
1. Table 1 is shown on lines 145, 148 and 157. Apparently there was a technical problem, it should be deleted from line 148 and 157.
2. Lines 189, 228, 251, 253, 301 and 309 have incorrect literature references (Error! Reference source not found). It needs to be fixed.
3. There is a gap in the sentence at line 209 and a comma starts at a new line 210. It needs to be fixed.
4. On line 219, the sentence begins with a period. It needs to be removed.
5. On line 349 there is a period at the beginning of the sentence. It is necessary to move it one line higher (line 348) where it is missing. It needs to be fixed.
6. In the chapter PSC identification process, the authors write on line 408 that Generally, survey questionnaires were distributed to key stakeholders to identify PSC, and/or assess each criterion. However, the authors do not further mention how many questionnaires they sent to the survey, how many were returned to them, what resulted from these questionnaires. It is possible to draw some conclusions from these questionnaires?
I wish the authors much success in their research.
Author Response
- Table 1 is shown on lines 145, 148 and 157. Apparently there was a technical problem, it should be deleted from line 148 and 157.
The duplicate one is now removed from the article. We pinned Table 1 in the file. Hopefully, there will be no more technical hiccups.
- Lines 189, 228, 251, 253, 301 and 309 have incorrect literature references (Error! Reference source not found). It needs to be fixed.
We combed through the whole paper and fixed all reference issues.
- There is a gap in the sentence at line 209 and a comma starts at a new line 210. It needs to be fixed.
We fixed all cross-reference issues.
- On line 219, the sentence begins with a period. It needs to be removed.
It is fixed.
- On line 349 there is a period at the beginning of the sentence. It is necessary to move it one line higher (line 348) where it is missing.It needs to be fixed.
It is fixed.
- In the chapter PSC identification process, the authors write on line 408/387 that Generally, survey questionnaires were distributed to key stakeholders to identify PSC, and/or assess each criterion.However, the authors do not further mention how many questionnaires they sent to the survey, how many were returned to them, what resulted from these questionnaires. It is possible to draw some conclusions from these questionnaires?
The numbers of the questionnaires were not mentioned in the cited articles. We do consider it is a problem in identifying PSC, since most of the papers in the corpus do not present the research method in detail.
Reviewer 3 Report
the authors well improved the manuscript and I accept for publication
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. We appreciate your time and effort in making the paper better.
