A Quantitative Analysis of Decision-Making Risk Factors for Mega Infrastructure Projects in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors:
Thank you for your work and effort in drafting this article.
After reviewing the article, I still have some doubt about the utilities and the goals of the research. The study tried to link several risk factors with a resulting risk factor, which in the study calls decision-making risk factor, using BN. However, the model development has no theories supported. The risk factors identified in Table 1 should include references or theoretical support before asking the expert to rank the dimensions and factors deemed important. Besides, the information shown in Tables 1 and 2 should be consistent, making it easier to read and follow. In addition, the resulting model in the setting of EPC+PPP is aggregated model of what project types under this procurement sincere there are many types of projects such as transportation, energy, and water projects, each with different characteristics and uniqueness. Applying the aggregated results of the proposed model to a specific case study should then be taken with care. The results of the assessment shown in Table 5 is highly questionable. Several risk factors highly fluctuate over the course of the project implementation. How could this be? How the level of risk change dramatically over such short period of time? This is why I doubt the utilities of the study.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article suffer from several issues such as the followings:
- The introduction is not well structured. It lacks focus and it needs to be rewritten.
- There are several studies in the literature about complex projects, associated risks with complex EPC projects, and PPP projects which are typically large complex projects. To this end, a background information sections is needed, so the readers can better understand what has been done in the literature body before this study. After that, this study will fill this gap in the literature.
- It is not clear how methodology was carried out. Were these factors collected by simply searching. Or there were a robust search protocol?
- Since the risk factors in Table 1 were obtained from the literature, the sources of these risk factors must be reported in Table 1.
- What were the questions in the survey?
- What are the characteristics of the survey respondents? How were they selected?
- The “Model development” subsection lacks proper citations. Where did the author obtain this information? You must cite.
- Line 166: Error! Reference source not found..
- All authors must review the final version of the paper before submission.
- subsection “3.2. BBN model design” lacks citations.
- The way in which the relationship was established in Figure 1 is subjective. After that, it was manually adjusted based on experience. This is the biggest limitation of this study, and the results are questionable.
- For example, The cost overrun factor is the father of project schedule delays?
- The foundation of the research is the issue. No argument of why this type of analysis was selected and how the findings of the analysis is useful.
N/A
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors should consider the following to further improve the paper:
1. There is need to improve the abstract to include an introduction before stating the aim of the study
2. The major issue with this paper is about justification of the methodology and absence of discussion of findings
3. The methodology should be explained and justified. There is a need to identify suitable methods and explain the basis for the one adopted.
4. The discussion of findings is totally missing and a research paper is not complete without the same. Aside from explanation of the findings, there is a need to discuss the results while stating and citing previous publications. There should be practical, theoretical and methodological implications of the study.
5. Recommendation is also missing. There should be policy recommendations addressed to stakeholders that would benefit from the results of the study.
The paper requires Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. Refine the Abstract
The abstract serves as the summary and the 'face' of your paper; therefore, it needs to be especially clear and informative. Each section of the abstract should be a mini-version of each corresponding section in the paper.
- Research Methodology: Briefly mention the research design. For instance, are you using a longitudinal study, a case study approach, or perhaps a meta-analysis?
- Findings: Summarize the major findings in one or two sentences. What were the most significant risk factors identified?
- Future Research: Identify the gaps that your research has revealed and propose directions for future studies. For example, “Further studies could explore the intersection between technological innovation and risk management in Chinese mega-infrastructure projects.”
2. Enhance the Literature Review
A literature review isn't just an accumulation of all the relevant studies; it’s a critique and comparison. Adding government-funded studies would add a layer of credibility and context. Examine what different studies are saying, where they agree or disagree, and how your research fits into the existing body of work. Specific to China, you could explore the differences in risk factors in projects funded by the state versus those funded privately.
3. Simplify the Title
Titles should be both informative and concise. In academic research, the trend is to make the title as descriptive as possible within a word limit. "A Quantitative Analysis of Decision-making Risk Factors for Mega Infrastructure Projects in China" fits this criterion well as it tells the reader what to expect and where the research focus lies.
4. Enrich the Discussion Section
A discussion section is your chance to interpret your findings. You should relate your findings back to your literature review and explain how your research contributes to existing knowledge. It is crucial to draw comparisons with other studies, particularly those conducted in the Chinese context, to determine similarities and differences. If the referenced studies are in Chinese, ensure that the translated versions maintain the integrity of the original content and cite them appropriately.
5. Revise the Conclusions
Your conclusions should not merely restate your findings but should synthesize them into actionable insights. What do these findings mean for stakeholders in China’s infrastructure sector? Based on your findings, what specific recommendations can you make? What areas should future research focus on?
Tackling these points in detail will significantly contribute to the clarity, depth, and overall quality of your research paper.
Minor corrections including some more clarity in the structure including rational.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors:
Thank you for your work in the revision and improvement of the article. Despite addressing remarks raised in the first round of the review, I believe that the paper needs improvements concerning the previous remarks. For example, although theoretical support for the risk factors has been added in Table 1, but such theoretical support should be the link between risk variables (factors) such as the link between "project schedule delay or A20" and "construction cost overrun or A21". This is because authors claimed that A21 --> A20, as shown in Figure 1. To my best knowledge, project delay usually leads to cost overrun, especially period costs such as managers' salaries, equipment costs and so on. This is why developing the causal model certainly needs strong theoretical support from past studies that examined such causal relationship.
I hope authors address this important issue if the paper is to be reconsidered. Thank you for your effort.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has significantly improved and is now ready for publication. The paper can be further improved by linking the discussion section to the literature. By doing so, the new contribution to the body of knowledge would be clear to the reader. Additionally, it would further justify conducting the research and producing the manuscript.
One minor issue is the flowing section titled "References." Move it to the next page.
Please ensure the work is edited by a specialized English editor.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved based on the earlier comments
Good
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Originality:
The paper presents a novel approach to understanding decision-making risk factors within the context of the EPC+PPP mode, a topic that has not been extensively covered in existing literature. The application of a Bayesian network to identify these factors brings a fresh perspective to the field.
Contribution to Scholarship:
The paper makes a significant contribution to the academic community by identifying and simulating risk factors related to mega infrastructure projects, especially within the unique environment of the EPC+PPP mode. This is particularly crucial as infrastructure projects of this magnitude have a profound impact on economies and societies.
Quality of Structure and Clarity:
The paper is well-structured, with clear objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions. The reader can easily understand the progression of ideas and the rationale behind each section.
Logical Coherence/Strength of Argument/Academic Soundness:
The arguments presented in the paper are coherent and well-substantiated. The use of the Bayesian network and the inclusion of a case study (Yiwu mall avenue project) strengthens the paper's academic rigor and validates the proposed model.
Engagement with sources as well as recent scholarship:
The paper demonstrates a good engagement with relevant sources and integrates recent scholarship into the discussion. This foundational work sets the stage for the paper's unique contributions.
Overall Merit:
Overall, this paper stands out as a comprehensive and insightful study on the decision-making risks associated with mega infrastructure projects in China, especially within the context of the EPC+PPP mode. The innovative use of a Bayesian network and the practical application of the proposed model to a real-world case study enhance the paper's merit and relevance to both academia and industry.
Decision:
Accepted.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors didn't address my previous comment about how the model was developed. I did suggested adding references about the established relationship of risk factors in the proposed model, not the factors themselves, but the links between them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
