Fiscal Success: Creating Quality Infrastructure in a Post-COVID World
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the paper entitled “Fiscal success: creating quality infrastructure in a post-COVID 2 world”, the authors investigated the G20 policy framework on quality infrastructure and mapped its objectives against the i3d3 project success evaluation method to ensure that investment in new infrastructure represents collective utility.
I like the paper. My recommendation is: a very interesting topic, use of an adequate methodology, contribution to the literature in the field, and also the relevance of the conclusions for policy makers and managers. However, next you may find some comments (strengths and recommendations).
Strengths:
- Title of the paper is clear and adequate;
- The Abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript and can be understood without reading the manuscript.
- The content of the paper (internal organization) is well structured and has clarity.
- References are adequate to the topic.
- The authors use the methods as outlined, methods that are clear.
- The contribution to the literature is well highlighted.
- The conclusions of the authors are justified by the results found in the study.
- The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.
Recommendations:
- “The aim in this paper is to analyze the G20 policy framework on quality infrastructure and map its objectives against the i3d3 project success evaluation method to ensure that investment in new infrastructure represents collective utility.” – this sentence it’s mentioned in the Abstract and then repeated in Introduction. I suggest to reformulate this sentence in Introduction section in order to emphasize the objective of the paper.
- Also, in Introduction section, I recommend to introduce a phrase to describe how the paper is organized.
- Rows 196-199 need reference/citation.
- Rows 427-428 – I recommend to cite newest statistics.
- I recommend to improve Figure 2, because is not clear. Also, mention the source of the figure below the title of figure (even is mentioned in the text).
- It is not clear if the results are/are not the same with other obtained in previous studies. I think that the paper value would probably increase if author(s) compare their results with those of previous studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. All responses are highlighted by blue text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
i3d3 - It would be helpful to paper readability if a short sentence is included in the abstract with reference to previously published work of this conceptual model.
Title is misleading - not clear whether it is an economic oriented paper, construction-related paper or public management paper. Please re-consider an update to the title.
Overall reads well in terms of grammar and writing style.
Would be beneficial to this paper to acknowledge previous work in literature eg:-
a) The Dali Model in risk management practice: The case of financial services firms
b) OECD Economic Outlook on growing imbalances and the risks threatening recovery
The paper is directed mainly towards the G20 policy principles yet there is little justification in the introductory sections why the authors chose this particular route. Why is the extent of content alignment of the G20 principles and the i3d3 framework so necessary to the global literature? How does proving the alignment assist the current global recovery from a recession that the pandemic has induced?
Still unclear why reference is made to project management - How does the alignment of the G20 and i3d3 assist project management and its implementation methods? There was no gap identified earlier in this paper (in relation to project management) so not sure why this is discussed in concluding arguments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. All responses are highlighted by blue text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim in this paper is to analyze the G20 policy framework on providing quality infrastructure and map its objectives against the i3d3 project success evaluation method to ensure that investment in new in restructure represents collective utility
The title is very challenge and I expected to see more practically results here. The findings are very general and very little correlation with the main subject (fiscal issues reflected in title) and with the practical issues.
Analytical comments are presented below:
- There are not aloud to use abbreviations in the abstract (i.e. i3d3 )
- I suggest to remake the figure 1 in order to put exactly which year (period) is about, not 1,2,3...
- Page 3, row 133 to avoid „Professor Jason Furman, the Former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Obama Administration noted”. Putting the academic titles of the authors and their affiliation is not academcally.
- Figure 2 is a source of Dick (2003). It is not academically to take figure which belong to other authors without having copyright acces. I suggest to redraw this figure in order to include an own view and to put the source as: own view on Dick (2003) or own prelucrations based on Dick (2003)
- The method requires more explanation. What i3d3 is?
- Row 556 page 12: „Overall alignment will be as asessed via a nominal scale of ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’.” Which this scale is? How many levels it has?
- There are 2 sections with the same titles (4.1 and 4.2 are the same called Method)
Results and discussion.
- I like the comparative presentation of tables 1 to 6. However these comparisons are very theoretical. I would like to clearly see which exactly are these measures.
For instance at 1.1 it is presented G20 principle as „1.1 Setting off a virtuous circle of economic activities”, The qualitative analysis referring to i3d3 Model Characteristics made by authors reflects „ A successful project is built on the philosophy of long life, loose fit, low energy and least pain. They serve as a language that aids communication between designers and end-users, and where absent, is often the underlying cause of dissatisfaction and an unsuccessful project. Four virtuous circles are created. For example, if a design is feasible, then end-users are more likely to see the project as desirable. This implies they will keep it longer. If end-users stay engaged with projects longer, then these projects become even more feasible.” Should be authors more exactly? Which types of successful project were applied/require to be applied until now in the context of Covid by countries?
- The same for all the rest of the points i3d3 Model Characteristics. At page 12, row 548 the authors present „ i3d3 evaluation model is used to test the extent of alignment between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’”. Thus, the practically dimension of the whole analysis presented in the section of Results is not seen.
- I don’t find in the section of results any refer to the problem of fiscal support to correlate with the title of the paper “Fiscal success: creating quality infrastructure in a post-COVID world”
- Conclusions are very general. I don’t see a clear added value of this work
- The limits and future avenues miss.
- The section „Author Contributions” has to include the dimension of conceptualization
Author Response
Please see the attachment. All responses are highlighted by blue text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is interesting, but the limitation to a qualitative analysis diminishes the relevance of the research.
A quantitative approach would be useful, added to the qualitative approach – in this way assuring a better understanding and generalization of the research results.
The proposed method should be compared with the other state-of-the-art methods to demonstrate the efficiency of your method.
Figure 2 - it is not clear enough
- 2. Method (525) vs 4.3. Method (547) ???
Discuss the limitations of your method and threats-to-validity of your results.
It would be useful to have more specific conclusions, based on the conducted research.
The future section of the work should be extended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. All responses are highlighted by blue text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comment.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors adressed majority the required adjustements.
However, regarding the requirement to describe the method i3d3 , the authors invokes the figure 1. I suggest a short description of this method to be presented in the paper, without being necessary for the reaaders to check the original surce in order to understand what it is about. In addition, Figure 1 is a a printscreen very blurred and unclear. Dificult to read and to undertsand how this method i3d3 works. It couldn't remain here this way. This lack should be strongly adressed.
The presentations of limits and future avenues require to be put at the end of the section of Conclusions.
Author Response
However, regarding the requirement to describe the method i3d3 , the authors invokes the figure 1. I suggest a short description of this method to be presented in the paper, without being necessary for the reaaders to check the original surce in order to understand what it is about. In addition, Figure 1 is a a printscreen very blurred and unclear. Dificult to read and to undertsand how this method i3d3 works. It couldn't remain here this way. This lack should be strongly adressed.
It is not effective to provide a summary further than what is already provided under Methods and Materials in our opinion. The referred paper is easily and freely accessible and provides an overview of what is a multi-layered and sophisticated evaluation algorithm. The idea of using the fishbone diagram was to summarize all of the variables used in the evaluation. We would like too maintain this approach please.
The graphic is from i3d3.net. It looks clear to us, but we are unable to edit it. If the journal editor does not think it is suitable quality, then we will refer to a URL instead. We prefer to include it, and have permission to do so from i3d3.net.
The presentations of limits and future avenues require to be put at the end of the section of Conclusions.
Our preference is to leave the new text at the end of the Results and Discussion section. Our reasoning is that (a) it is not uncommon to do so, (b) it is a more logical flow from the preceding text, and (c) it contains citations, and it is accepted practice not to include citations in a conclusion.
As a result, we have not made any changes to the previous version of the manuscript, as the other reviewers had no further issues to resolve. We are happy to be advised by the editor if they require further action from us.
Thank you for you feedback. We appreciate your time.
Reviewer 4 Report
I congratulate the authors, they have made all the modifications and from my point of view have improved the quality of the article.
Good luck in your future work.
Author Response
Thank you.
