Application of Digital Technologies Tools for Social and Sustainable Construction in a Developing Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is a very interesting topic, and I would like to offer the following opinions.

1. Additional supplementation is needed for tables and figures that can show the research content in a more visual way. 2. It is difficult to read and interpret Table 1.

3. There is a lack of logical plausibility with the research results covered compared to the research topic. Sufficient complement to probability is required.

4. There are footnotes that are inconsistent with the references and main text. Please check again.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Additional revisions to grammatical expressions and academic terminology are required.

Author Response

1.	Additional supplementation is needed for tables and figures that can show the research content in a more visual way. 2. It is difficult to read and interpret Table 1.	Thanks for the comment. We have decided to include the boundaries in Table 1 to enhance the legibility of the table.
2.	There is a lack of logical plausibility with the research results covered compared to the research topic. Sufficient complement to probability is required.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.
3.	There are footnotes that are inconsistent with the references and main text. Please check again.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The subject of your work is very interesting, but in my opinion the manuscript needs to be better organized.

Long tables and long number descriptions, like in paragraph 4 are difficult to understand. Maybe it is possible to use graphs for better comparison of your findings?

A similar problem I have with understanding conclusions. Very long descriptions and sentences like 'The findings of this study can also offer guidance in the evaluation of specific application (...)' or 'The findings from this study will provide construction organizations with (...)'. I miss these findings. Try to type them as a list, I do not think if professionals will analyze numbers from tables, they just need good and short recommendations. how to implement DT in their areas.

By the way, the comment in line 327 is not necessary to be included in the manuscript, but the suggestion seems to be good there.

Author Response

1.	The subject of your work is very interesting, but in my opinion the manuscript needs to be better organized.	Thanks for the comment.
2.	Long tables and long number descriptions, like in paragraph 4 are difficult to understand. Maybe it is possible to use graphs for better comparison of your findings?	Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge that we have included long tables due to our comprehensive assessment of various application areas. In this particular study, we have chosen tables over graphs because they provide a more detailed and comprehensive representation of the data, allowing for a more in-depth analysis.
3.	A similar problem I have with understanding conclusions. Very long descriptions and sentences like 'The findings of this study can also offer guidance in the evaluation of specific application (...)' or 'The findings from this study will provide construction organizations with (...)'. I miss these findings. Try to type them as a list, I do not think if professionals will analyze numbers from tables, they just need good and short recommendations. how to implement DT in their areas.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.
4.	By the way, the comment in line 327 is not necessary to be included in the manuscript, but the suggestion seems to be good there.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The topic presented in the paper aligns with my research interests, and I commend the authors for their efforts in providing a structured discussion. The paper effectively communicates the numerous applications of digital technologies. However, certain aspects could be further enhanced to increase the paper's originality and relevance to its stated objective.

Main Comments:

Originality Concerns: The paper delves into the application of digital technologies, which is already well-documented in existing literature. The unique proposition of this manuscript, as indicated in the title, abstract, and introduction, is the exploration of digital technology utilization within the developing economy context. It would greatly benefit the study if more emphasis were placed on this particular context, analyzing the impacts of these technologies on a developing economy and highlighting differences in their implementation when compared to more developed nations. Understanding the unique characteristics and challenges of a developing economy in relation to digital technology adoption is crucial for this study's novelty.

Introduction: While the introduction is organized and offers clear insight into the paper's direction, there seems to be an ambiguous inclusion of cyber-physical systems (Lines 44-50). The relevance or purpose of discussing the cyber-physical system at this juncture needs clarification.

Methodology: The methodology is detailed and includes justifications for the chosen approaches. This provides a solid foundation for the reader to understand the research methods employed.

Findings and Conclusion: To elevate the impact of the findings and conclusion sections, I recommend a more contextualized analysis that underscores the study's unique contributions. Highlighting the paper's originality will better position it for potential publication in the Sustainable Journal.

I hope these comments assist the authors in refining their manuscript. The topic is timely and relevant, and with the suggested enhancements, this paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature on digital technology adoption in developing economies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see above

Author Response

1.	The paper delves into the application of digital technologies, which is already well-documented in existing literature. The unique proposition of this manuscript, as indicated in the title, abstract, and introduction, is the exploration of digital technology utilization within the developing economy context. It would greatly benefit the study if more emphasis were placed on this particular context, analyzing the impacts of these technologies on a developing economy and highlighting differences in their implementation when compared to more developed nations. Understanding the unique characteristics and challenges of a developing economy in relation to digital technology adoption is crucial for this study's novelty.	Thank you for the comment. The impacts of 4IR technologies on a developing economy are not significantly different from the impact on more developed nations. While we acknowledge that there are differences in their implementation in both contexts, future studies could address this since it falls outside the scope of this study. This study was simply designed to ascertain the application areas of these innovative technologies.
2.	Introduction: While the introduction is organized and offers clear insight into the paper's direction, there seems to be an ambiguous inclusion of cyber-physical systems (Lines 44-50). The relevance or purpose of discussing the cyber-physical system at this juncture needs clarification.	Thank you for the comment. We have deleted this aspect of the work.
3.	Methodology: The methodology is detailed and includes justifications for the chosen approaches. This provides a solid foundation for the reader to understand the research methods employed.	Thank you for the comment.
4.	Findings and Conclusion: To elevate the impact of the findings and conclusion sections, I recommend a more contextualized analysis that underscores the study's unique contributions. Highlighting the paper's originality will better position it for potential publication in the Sustainable Journal.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.
5.	I hope these comments assist the authors in refining their manuscript. The topic is timely and relevant, and with the suggested enhancements, this paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature on digital technology adoption in developing economies.	Thank you for the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-2684234 – Review v1

 

1.        The study, based on digital technologies (DT), conducts an analysis of the construction industry and employs multiple statistical methods to ensure the objectivity of the results. This contributes significantly to enhancing the sustainability of the construction sector and deserves commendation.

 

2.        Although a substantial list of references is provided, further supplementation or clarification of the relationship between existing literature and this study is recommended.

 

3.        The original 27 factors were condensed to four through factor analysis, and these four factors collectively explain 82% of the variance in the original 27 factors. It appears that there has been no renaming or re-labeling of these four factors. Is there any specific reason for this?

 

4.        Table 2 indicates that the current application of digital technologies (DT) is primarily concentrated in the design phase. Is there any additional explanation or elaboration on this observation?

 

5.        Could there be more in-depth analysis and supplementation regarding the background conditions of the survey respondents and their correlation with the questionnaire results?

 

6.        The conclusion should incorporate more analysis or explanation concerning the application of digital technologies (DT) in various phases of construction projects (design, construction, and operation) within the field of architectural engineering.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1.	The study, based on digital technologies (DT), conducts an analysis of the construction industry and employs multiple statistical methods to ensure the objectivity of the results. This contributes significantly to enhancing the sustainability of the construction sector and deserves commendation.	Thank you for the comment.
2.	Although a substantial list of references is provided, further supplementation or clarification of the relationship between existing literature and this study is recommended.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.
3.	The original 27 factors were condensed to four through factor analysis, and these four factors collectively explain 82% of the variance in the original 27 factors. It appears that there has been no renaming or re-labeling of these four factors. Is there any specific reason for this?	Thanks for the comment. No actual reason for this. The adopted cluster names actually reflects the latest variables within that cluster. Hence, we decided to adopt those cluster names.
4.	Table 2 indicates that the current application of digital technologies (DT) is primarily concentrated in the design phase. Is there any additional explanation or elaboration on this observation?	Thank you for the comment. Table 2 presented the mean values and their respective standard deviations, with no primary concentration on any specific application area, other than the highest-ranked areas based on the table.
5.	Could there be more in-depth analysis and supplementation regarding the background conditions of the survey respondents and their correlation with the questionnaire results?	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.
6.	The conclusion should incorporate more analysis or explanation concerning the application of digital technologies (DT) in various phases of construction projects (design, construction, and operation) within the field of architectural engineering.	Thanks for the comment. We have done this as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. First of all, I think this article should be a review rather than a research article.

 

2.In section 2, through the author's review of the literature, 27 variables related to construction area of ​​digital technologies in Table 1 are identified. Considering the author's research aims, the author is required to provide the literature search plan and keywords. That is, it is necessary to explain why the content of these selected documents can support the research gap that the author wants to fill.

 

3. The data section lacks a basic description of the questionnaire. Questionnaire questions or sample questions or formats, etc. need to be provided, whether in the main text or in appendix form. This data part is the main content of the analysis in sections 3 and 4. There is too little information in the data, making it very confusing for readers. What is the purpose of the convenience sampling technique described by the author? What large sample pool was the sample drawn from? Or the way to select questionnaire objects? However, the article does not provide an overall and comprehensive description of the sampling objects. In addition, what is the time period for conducting the questionnaire? The questionnaire method needs a more detailed description to give the reader a clear understanding of how the data was obtained.

 

4. The author needs to describe why “professionals based in Lagos State such as architects,

builders, engineers, and quantity surveyors” is representative? Why can Lagos State represent Nigeria, and why is Nigeria representative of developing countries? Otherwise, the title needs to limit the specific research area.

 

5. Lines 256-265, similar to this part, A table (use standard statistical expressions) can be used to express it clearly.

 

 

6. Section 4.3, does the author use the data content to perform EFA and PCA on the questionnaire's five-point Likert scale of the 27 application fields? If so, does the author think that going from rating 1 to rating 2, and going from rating 4 to rating 5, represent the same scale and measurement?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

1.	First of all, I think this article should be a review rather than a research article.	Thank you for the comment.
2.	In section 2, through the author's review of the literature, 27 variables related to construction area of digital technologies in Table 1 are identified. Considering the author's research aims, the author is required to provide the literature search plan and keywords. That is, it is necessary to explain why the content of these selected documents can support the research gap that the author wants to fill.	Thank you for the comment. We have done this as requested.
3.	The data section lacks a basic description of the questionnaire. Questionnaire questions or sample questions or formats, etc. need to be provided, whether in the main text or in appendix form. This data part is the main content of the analysis in sections 3 and 4. There is too little information in the data, making it very confusing for readers. What is the purpose of the convenience sampling technique described by the author? What large sample pool was the sample drawn from? Or the way to select questionnaire objects? However, the article does not provide an overall and comprehensive description of the sampling objects. In addition, what is the time period for conducting the questionnaire? The questionnaire method needs a more detailed description to give the reader a clear understanding of how the data was obtained.	Thank you for the comment. We have done this as requested.
4.	The author needs to describe why “professionals based in Lagos State such as architects, builders, engineers, and quantity surveyors” is representative? Why can Lagos State represent Nigeria, and why is Nigeria representative of developing countries? Otherwise, the title needs to limit the specific research area.	Thank you for the comment. Lagos State was selected for this research because of its status as Nigeria's economic hub and its significant role in the construction and real estate sectors. Lagos is known for its rapid urbanization, large-scale infrastructure projects, and a dynamic construction industry, hence its selection.   The study was also conducted in Lagos because the researcher was based in Lagos when this study was conducted. Additionally, due to the researcher's familiarity with the local context and access to professionals and resources in Lagos, conducting the study in the state was logistically convenient and allowed for more effective data collection and engagement with industry experts and practitioners. This proximity and access facilitated a deeper understanding of the challenges and dynamics specific to the Lagos construction and real estate sectors.   We have also amended the limitation section to reflect this.
5.	Lines 256-265, similar to this part, A table (use standard statistical expressions) can be used to express it clearly.	Thank you for the comment.
6.	Section 4.3, does the author use the data content to perform EFA and PCA on the questionnaire's five-point Likert scale of the 27 application fields? If so, does the author think that going from rating 1 to rating 2, and going from rating 4 to rating 5, represent the same scale and measurement?	Thank you for your comment. In our analysis of the Likert scale data, we treated the scale points as equally spaced, assuming a linear interpretation. We appreciate your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the manuscript has been appropriately revised, and please review the typos and inscription structure once again.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please review the academic terminology and inscription structure once more.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your response. We have improved the typographical errors as indicated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

my comments have been addressed. I welcome the article for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good. minor grammar issues.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your response. We have improved the typographical errors as indicated.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study has also been revised in 2023.11 (v2), so I have no other new comments. I wish future research success.

Author Response

We wish to appreciate the reviewer for your time and positive comments.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is not a very good attitude or pattern for responding to reviewers.

 

The author basically did not reply to the reviewer's questions, and the cover letter provided was very inconvenient to check the author's revision status.

 

As a result, for most of the questions, the author only replied "thank you for the comment" without any modifications.

 

Or, there is a selective response to the reviewer's questions, but there is no response to every question. For example, "we have done this as requested", but when the reviewer worked hard to find the corresponding changes to the revised original text, the reviewer only found that there were almost no changes to the many issues raised, or they were simply adjusted.

 

This is not a proper attitude. It is disrespectful to the reviewers and insulting to the journal. The authors use the journal as tools to increase citations quickly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

This is to sincerely apologise for the way and manner of our response to your comments. We decided to highlight the major revisions in the paper instead of copying the entire portion in our response and we are very sorry for this.

Kindly note that we were not selective in our responses as we responded to all the earlier comments from the 5 reviewers as indicated. However, we have further checked the earlier comments again and the paper has been further revised. The revisions are highlighted in the revised paper.

Thank you.

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my previous review comments,  "But when the reviewer worked hard to find the corresponding changes to the revised original text, the reviewer only found that there were almost no changes to the many issues raised, or they were simply adjusted." This means that the author needs to point out the specific changes with pages and lines. 

For example, in my first round comments, point 3,

What is the purpose of the convenience sampling technique described by the author?

What large sample pool was the sample drawn from?

Or the way to select questionnaire objects?  However, the article does not provide an overall and comprehensive description of the sampling objects.

In addition, what is the time period for conducting the questionnaire? The questionnaire method needs a more detailed description to give the reader a clear understanding of how the data was obtained.

The author must reply to each question in detail with the page and lines (the position of the revised content).

Even in the newly revised manuscript, the author said that they highlighted all the revised content; it is really hard to find the corresponding content. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

Please note that we have generally improved the methodology section (section 3.0 starting from Page 7 Line 294 all through Page 9 Line 382) to cater for the comments regarding the adoption of convenience sampling method, population and sampling issues as well as data collection and questionnaire administration.

• Please refer to page 8 (Line 12 – 15) to see our additions made on the purpose of the convenience sampling technique.
• We also made additions to page 8 on the sample pool, sample frame and description of the sampling objects. This can be found in (Line 18 – 32)
• Page 8 also discusses the time period for conducting the questionnaire and other necessary information requested. This can be found in (Line 18 – 32)
• Again, kindly check page 8 for a summary of additions made based on your request. We have discussed the time period for conducting the questionnaire as well as the method adopted in the collection of data using the questionnaire.