Analyzing Sustainable Practices in Engineering Projects: A Systemic Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Analyzing Sustainable Practices in Engineering Projects: A Systemic Approach

This article aims to examine the system of engineering practices involved in projects that seek the well-being of society and understand how these systems help or hinder practices to solve social and environmental challenges.

There is need to revise abstract with the importance of this study.

Research significance, novelty and subsequent impact of this study on the state of the practice should be highlighted. Further, the literature review is shallow including just clusters of statements, lacking coherence and failing to establish the relevance of the work reported in the paper. The state-of the-art does not adequately highlight the gaps in order to establish the motivations and to promote the objectives of the paper and more convincing motivations of this research should be provided. 

The introduction must be re-organized. There are a lot of repetions as well as useless information.

The discussion of the results must be improved. At this stage, the authors simply reported the results obtained without giving a relevant interpretation of them.

In the conclusions, the authors should explain the significance and shortcomings of the research work, instead of repeating the results obtained before.

The English writing must be significantly improved.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main contribution of this paper is the application of systemic analysis to an understanding of engineering practices drivers. The systemic nature of this approach allows  the practices that engineers have inside engineering with positive social and environmental impact to be considered in terms of their inner complexity and a model to be built  based on participants' perceptions.

1. In the manuscript, the authors propose a solution for ,, Analyzing Sustainable Practices in Engineering Projects: A Sys- 2 temic Approach" . The proposed mathematical model is presented in detail. Also, some irelevant numerical simulations results are highlighted.
 2.
 a) Strong points:
   - The proposed mathematical model is a complex one and it generates,
 through simulation, feasible results.
   - The references are consistent as number and relevance.

 b) Weak points:
   - The applied numerical simulation algorithm is not detailed.
   - Some assumptions are made in the research, but their validity is explained.

- The mathematical procedures used in the manuscript have a irelevant research aspect.

  3. Some recommendations:

    1. The applied numerical simulation algorithm is not detailed. It
 has to be detailed.
    2 Some assumptions are made in the research, but their validity is
 not explained. These aspects should be clarified.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

A manuscript on the topic of examining the system of engineering practices involved in projects to solve social and environmental problems is a difficult task, but a much needed one. Therefore, the manuscript is part of the current topic and definitely visible in the functioning of regional communities.

The manuscript is understandable and transparent in its structure. Authors must to correct:

1. Table 3 should be described - it is without a signature

2. In the text of the manuscript should include an assessment of the impact of research on the local community and changing the environment in terms of practical application - it is worth mentioning examples of activities

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper aims to examine the system of engineer ing practices involved in projects that seek the well-being of society and understand how these systems help or hinder practices to solve social and environmental challenges.

However, I have some major remarks as follows:

 The novelty and main findings should be highlighted in the abstract.

 The contribution of this paper is not significant. It will be better to present the “state of the art” related to this study to show the research gap clearly.

 Is there any improvement done on the causal loop diagram in this study?

 The samples of 22 respondents/interviews are not sufficient for data analysis.

 In the methodology section, the detail steps, statistical analysis, model validation should be presented.

 Lack of novelty and significance of study since there is no new model or model improvement introduced in this paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Regarding the samples of 22 respondents only, I am still not convinced on the representative of the data. The authors should provide strong justification on the number of samples according to the past studies etc.

Author Response

According to Sterman (2000), one of the main researchers in System Dynamics and creator of the methodology of the paper, semistructured interviews has been proven to be effective in this kind of models. Three considerations were made based on your specific enquiry. First, after the first in-depth interview, a causal loop diagram was created based on the mental model of this interviewee. All the links of this model were grounded on the personal statements found in the verbatim transcription of the interview. Second, after every new interview, a new model was creatd, and the previous model was improved with the information provided by the transcription. So, the final version of the causal loop diagram is the result of an accumulative diagnosis of the mental model of the interviewees. Finally, after twenty interviews, no new variables or causal relationship were found, then the stop criterion (Saturation) was used. Two more interviews were made, but the same situation happens, so the decision was to keep the final number of interviews in 22. 

Similar studies that use interviews include similar numbers. For example, Mills et.al (2021) include 19 participants to study health equity in tobbaco control, Inam et. al (2015) used 12 interviews to produce the diagram of soil salinity management, and Sons et. al. (2021) used 14 stakeholders to create a model of water vulnerability in Alaska. Therefore, the number of interviews match with the methodologies found in the literature.

Two new sentences were included to address this point.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments accordingly. Therefore, I have no further comments.