Influence of Social and Economic Factors on Construction Project Performance in Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper in its current form read like a report i feel the authors should re-create the narrative to enhance the global contribution of this study. 

i personally feel the authors should investigate more to improve the quality of literature and provide theoretical underpinning. the can use the following keywords to search across databases 

enablers of collaboration, 

stakeholder induced constraints

influence of power and dependence on collaboration

also post COVID scenario is extremely important so 

the core competencies of the contractor in the post COVID scenario

as these will be the main determinants of the socio-economic factors that impacted performance of construction projects. 

in the social factor segment the factors are reflecting towards the road construction projects and needs more clarity the authors can search literature on: 

the impacts of constraints on project success. 

the research methodology part is extremely weak as RII is a old and rejected method the authors should use tools like confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor analysis. 

Since the methodology is weak the paper in it current form has very limited contribution to the body of knowledge. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions. We did our best to addresses each of your suggestions. A response file is attached. Thanks again for your contribution. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written with all sections defined clearly.

Few Minor comments for the authors:

a) from line 60-66, I suggest authors to describe, research problem/aim (already there), research objectives, scope, and methodology in a summarized way so that readers will have idea about the whole paper.

b) the title should mention Pakistan as the study is limited to Pakistan only.

c) Table 2, heading of table should be economic factors not social factors.

d) Table 3 is not a result but showing measurement scale.

e) In the results section, the demographic mention between line 251 to 261 should be mentioned in table for better clarity.

f) Table 6: heading of table should be social and economic factors as the table mention both the factors.

g) Section 4.2: line 280-292 : Suggested to convert it into table for better readability.

h) Currently, the authors have mixed the results and discussion sections together. This is affecting the readability and identifying the clear output/contribution of the paper difficult.

It is suggested to separate the results from the survey and interviews in one section and discussion in another section. In the Discussion section, authors should analyze the findings interpreting  the results. This section should give the readers, a breather from the statistical data and should contain more subjective analysis referencing the results (as this a subjective study substantiated by a statistical data). Here, the readers should find the overall output from the study minus the statistical part.

Additionally, the authors should discuss their own views and suggestions in this section to tackle the these factors and challenges. Currently the items are there but they all are intermingled.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions. We did our best to addresses each of your suggestions. A response file is attached. Thanks again for your contribution. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the introduction, the authors should explain their research question and the specific goals of the research more clearly. Furthermore, they should explain the structure of the paper according to the research phases. The paper neglects to consider the quality of the building and, in a broader sense, of the built environment, as factors of people's social well-being. Performance also concerns aesthetic and cultural aspects, as well as issues of identity preservation of the built environment, which are totally neglected. This weakness limits the validity of the study to recently built urban environments, excluding historic cities and heritage landscapes. Referring to these observations, the bibliography should also be extended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions. We did our best to addresses each of your suggestions. A response file is attached. Thanks again for your contribution. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

i feel that the authors have made the required changes

Author Response

Dear Sir 

Thank you very much for your time and constructive suggestions to improve the paper. It really helped us alot to improve the paper. 

thanks 

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions made by the authors take up the reviewer's suggestions only in formality. The revisions do not substantially improve the article. As an example, the request to explain the articulation of the paper in section 1 was not accepted, de facto. The authors merely list the paragraphs, without explaining the logical path underlying the articulation and its relationship to the research method.

Author Response

Dear Sir

First of all, thank you very much for constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We did our best to improve the paper aligned with your suggestions. I hope this modified paper will meet your quality expectactions. 

Please find a seperate sheet with your valuable suggestions and our response. 

thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors are recommended to pay more attention to the reviewers' suggestions. Some improvements are evident, but the paper still requires thorough revision to clarify the research methodology and process.

Author Response

Dear Sir

Sorry, the revised version could not meet your expactions. We tried our best to understand your comments and we revised the whole section of methodology (section 3). We tried to explain it and we add the research flow diagram as well. We also revised other sections aligned with these changes. Please see the highlighted in paper. We hope it will meet your expectation. 

thanks