An Approach for Measuring Complexity Degree of International Engineering Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study proposed an innovation complexity measurement based on the Harmony Management Theory for International Engineering Projects. The topic selection of the paper is significant, and lots of work has been paid. Generally, it’s a well-written job. The following suggestions are provided for enhancing the quality of the study.
1. In Section 3.5 Constructing the evaluation index system of international engineering, the selection of indicators of the international engineering complexity index system should be supported by more references which could make the index system more reliable (Table 2).
2. In Section 5.4 Analysis of evaluation results, measures for managing organizational complexity, technical complexity, and environmental complexity could be discussed more precisely. Besides, the comparison study between the research findings and existing research should be added in the discussion section with related references.
3. The latest references about project complexity should be added to the study, such as the study of Lan Luo.
4. Please check on the consistency of referencing style and revise the inconsistencies.
Please check on the consistency of referencing style and revise the inconsistencies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Firstly, I would like to thank the authors for addressing an interesting and cognitively relevant issue in their manuscript. The problem discussed is intellectually stimulating and important, both in the field of science and in the business environment. Like any study of this nature, it has its limitations and areas for modification. It should be noted that the authors need to revise their references, as there are some sources that are difficult to locate (e.g., 18, 19). References marked as "(in Chinese)" should be replaced with English articles to ensure the verifiability of the sources used. This is a significant suggestion that hinders a full engagement with the manuscript and may also impact readers. Furthermore, it is advisable to update the literature review by utilizing resources such as Web of Science and Scopus databases. The discussed issue is universal in nature, and there are numerous international publications that should be referenced. For instance, this applies to reference number 1, which needs to be corrected. Regarding the references, it would be beneficial to expand them to include reports on projects published, for example, by the Standish Group. The introduction contains several general statements. The authors mention that 5.4% of projects do not achieve performance goals, but what does that mean exactly? Does it refer to exceeding time, budget, or scope? This aspect is too broadly presented. The research gap has not been adequately explored. It is advisable to avoid terms such as "innovation method." Whether a method is innovative should be left for readers and business practitioners to assess when utilizing it. The authors immediately jump into section 2 without providing any commentary on publications or research findings. It would be beneficial to add a section dedicated to the literature review. Unfortunately, the absence of this section also raises concerns about the literature used. The same issue can be observed in Table 1, where an important aspect such as "components" is based on only two publications. Moving on to the applied case study method, it is necessary to provide arguments for why a single case study was chosen for this research. This is especially important considering how the authors defined the presentation of the method's concept. The method already exhibits a high level of operationalization in the business field. The presented concept is likely a model. The article is intellectually stimulating and holds significant potential, but without referencing international and current literature, it requires substantial revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Recommendation: Minor Revision
Comments:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. I still think there is a little bit more room for improvement. Hope the following suggests would help the author/s.
1. A would suggest to clarify the research relevance of the paper, the gap and the method. There is indeed a justification, but not clearly indicated the gap and relevance. In my opinion, the what for? of the paper, and the how?
It is vital to clearly articulate with why the research is important. I would recommend to introduce a research relevance section, specifying how this research helps to the development of the theoretical arena.
2. When explaining results, the previously research finding should be considered including an explanation of similar or dissimilar results. Only considering this scientific procedure there can be seen the relevance and specific advance obtained with this work. A better discussion of the results contrasted with previous literature is required.
3. Also, A Managerial contributions section should be included. It is important to specify and clarify the relevance of this research to practitioners in the field to increase the readability of the paper.
Best luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to clarify that the previous review was a minor revision according to the reviewers' comments. The suggested changes have been incorporated. I still believe that publications in international journals should primarily be in English. I am unable to address publications in any other language, and I trust the editor to handle this matter, as well as any language-related issues, as I am not an expert in English language evaluation.
