Building Information Modeling Execution Drivers for Sustainable Building Developments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

“Modelling Building Information Modelling Execution drivers for Sustainable Building Developments”

The content of the paper corresponds to the topic stated in the title.

I recommend the article for publishing after taking into account the following remarks:

1.       Please formulate the aim of the work more expressively.

2.       Conclusions are generally written. Please elaborate a little on the conclusions.

3.       Author Contributions is missing (“For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used "Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; Methodology, X.X.; Software, X.X.; Validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; Formal Analysis, X.X.; Investigation, X.X.; Resources, X.X.; Data Curation, X.X.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, X.X.; Writing – Review & Editing, X.X.; Visualization, X.X.; Supervision, X.X.; Project Administration, X.X.; Funding Acquisition, Y.Y.”).

4.       The paper should be adapted to the editorial guidelines.

Instructions for Authors:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

“References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Books and Book Chapters:

2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196. (…)”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some comments:

a. Please, revise the Title: "Modelling Building Information Modelling..." is redudant. 

b. Please, explain GDP the first time that it appears in the text. Line 34 - Page 1.

c. The main objective of the manuscript is not declared. Please, include a new section focused on Research Aim.

d. Which is the innovation of this research work?

e. Section 2 should be the background or state of the art?

f. Figure 1 is the flow chart of the Authors' work? I could not find the extensive literature review that Authors declare.

g. Figure 2 is not completely well-explained in the text. Please, improve in the revised version of the manuscript. How the weights of the inputs variables was exactly defined? The direction of the arrows are ok? I am not completely agree with Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Authors must shown how they arrived to them.

h. What about the novelty of this research work? Please, explain in a detail manner.

i. Which is the main contribution of this research work to the AEC area?

j. What about limitation of this research work?

k. The Authors applied the methodology in a real case study? It should be very significant in order to validate the method that Authors developed. Please, revise this issue and demonstrate the applicability of the system.

l. In my opinion, reconsideration after major revision. Thank you!

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This analysis investigates 19 the factors influencing BIM implementation in construction in developing nations. The article is interesting, but I consider that this version must be improved before it can be published.

In the keywords section, select others that are not extensive.

Each of the drivers, placed in table 1, should have its individual reference. Apparently these 6-citation drivers have been extracted. It would be appropriate to include more authors, to give more strength to this review.

Each of the phases established in Figure 1 must be clarified.

Clarify how the interviews or surveys were developed and how the participants were chosen.

A thorough revision of the grammar and the way of citing is required (line 284 Ada et al., 2020).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Some comments:

a. Table 1 is not very easy to understand. Please, explain in a detail way in the text.

b. Please, submit the manuscript with the changes marked in yellow colour. In this moment, I cannot see very well the changes introduced.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for their complimentary comments and suggestions. We have carried out the modifications that the reviewer suggested and revised the manuscript accordingly in the word file. Table 1 now explain the whole aim of the factors .

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors.

Thank you for sending this new version.

I have reviewed the document and the submission has several parts that indicate to me that this version has not been rigorously reviewed:

Abstract: smaximise ; categorized

Number 2: the citations are misplaced: {Abubakar, 2014 #19;Olanrewaju, 2020 #24;Olanrewaju, 2020 #23;Olawumi, 98 2019 #27;Olugboyega, 2016 #122;Pérez, 2022 #146}.

The section related to the contribution of the authors is not correctly corrected.

I would also appreciate detailing the number of participants in the surveys.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, check format and typos regarding the whole manuscript.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for their complimentary comments and suggestions. We have carried out the modifications that the reviewer suggested and revised the manuscript accordingly in the word file

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I consider that the article meets the conditions to be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for their complimentary comments and suggestions.