Investigating the Moderating Role of Political Factors on Internal Success Factors and Project Success: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled " Lost time is never found again: Exploring the moderating role of political factors on internal success factors and project success” deals with a very interesting topic, and it included interesting ideas. In general, I appreciate the aims of this work; it is quite interesting and informative to most readers of this field.
However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve their paper:
· The research questions are not well posed. The paper contribution seems not clear and strong. Please explain the paper contribution by explaining, How the proposed contribution can fill the gap in the literature?
· The name of section 3 “Theoretical Background” is confusing.
· Figure 1: Conceptual research model is not clear.
· The main contribution of this paper should be compared with other similar empirical studies.
· What are the limitations of the study in terms of the proposed method, data used, approaches, and/or analysis?
· How the results of this study can be generalized to other regions.
· The innovation is not so obvious. What is the originality of this research? What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?
· The authors should convince the readers, that their contribution is so important. These issues deserve a deeper discussion: What are the managerial implications from this research? How decision or policy makers could benefit from this study.
· As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.
I wish the author(s) all the best for their research and that these comments will be useful to them in improving the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is obvious that current regression analysis does not meet the basic requirements.
1. The article displays a lack of professionalism and carelessness in writing. For instance, the author's affiliation is written as "Department of Engineering Management School of economics and management University of Science and technology Beijing" instead of the correct formatting. 2. The paper is poorly written and requires significant editing. 3. The research topic, "Lost time is never found again: Exploring the moderating role of political factors on internal success factors and project success," may not be appropriate. It is unclear how political factors are related to lost time. 4. The literature cited is not representative, and most of it is relatively old. The citation style is inconsistent and careless, with some references missing critical information such as journal names. Please see reference 23. 5. The literature review is poorly organized and fails to demonstrate what existing research has said about the role of political factors in project success and internal success factors, as well as the research gap in this area. 6. The method employed in the paper is outdated and inadequately explained. Critical questions about how the survey was conducted, whether the 450 respondents were randomized, the extent to which political factors explained internal and project success, and how the factors were measured remain unanswered. Additionally, the paper did not address situations of heterogeneity.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study focuses on investigation of two critical factors related with renewable energy projects in Pakistan, which in turn are associated with political factors. Therefore, the study aims at providing valuable input to governmental institutions. The proposed methodology is appropriate for the objectives and hypotheses stated in the study, therefore applications of additional controls is not recommended. Whilst the research' s conclusions are consistent with the evidence, it is recommended that comparisons with other studies conducted in other countries could be applied. Therefore, it is desirable to expand the references. The tables and figures fit the study adequately.
Author Response
Point 1: The study focuses on investigation of two critical factors related with renewable energy projects in Pakistan, which in turn are associated with political factors. Therefore, the study aims at providing valuable input to governmental institutions. The proposed methodology is appropriate for the objectives and hypotheses stated in the study, therefore applications of additional controls is not recommended. Whilst the research' s conclusions are consistent with the evidence, it is recommended that comparisons with other studies conducted in other countries could be applied. Therefore, it is desirable to expand the references. The tables and figures fit the study adequately.
Response 1: As suggested numerous latest and relevant studies were added in the study. These studies are mentioned in the INTRODUCTION section to highlight gaps in the literature regarding the political factors. In addition a new section under the political factors was added under section 2.3 along with table displaying political factors in different country’s context. These new studies are used to draw the comparisons with Pakistan in the last two paragraphs of discussion section. In addition, the generalizations of this study for other firms and to cope with political factors are mentioned in section 6 and its sub section 6.2.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for sharing your interesting research with us. Your manuscript requires revision as per the file attached before it can be considered for publication at Sustainability.
Best wishes!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved.
Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I did not have any other comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
