Sustainable Design and Building Information Modeling of Construction Project Management towards a Circular Economy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research solves the issue of sustainable design and building information modelling in construction project management through circular economy principles. The research aims to analyze the impact of using building information modelling on sustainability indicators measured through costs.
The objective of the research is to analyze the impact of utilizing BIM technologies in Slovakia, Croatia, and Slovenia on specific sustainability indicators in the management of construction projects within the context of economic sustainability, namely cost parameters. Based on comprehensive analyses and studies, the research has defined areas for monitoring and assessing the influence of BIM on costs, which include the recycling rate, reduction of waste production, and decrease in CO2 emissions, all contributing to cost savings associated with sustainable practices.
The research defined the monitoring of indicators such as the rate of recycling, reduction of waste production, and reduction of CO2 emissions through cost indicators.
Some consideration / questions:
· The section regarding the composition of the interviewed sample does not provide complete information about the numerical significance of the sample or the numerical data of the interviewed groups, as indicated in line 215. This lack of information could influence the analysis results, making it difficult to assess whether the sample is representative or if it could introduce bias in the results. Additionally, while percentage data has been provided, the absence of absolute values limits the understanding of the results. Lastly, it is unclear whether the sample was uniformly selected across the investigated countries or if there are significant differences in the composition of the sample among the various countries.
· Some conclusions appear to be predictable.
· The elements of novelty and uniqueness of the research are lacking.
· How can this work impact future research? What does it bring more than the existing framework?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, on behalf of the entire author team, let me thank you very much for the valuable comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. The document was extensively revised based on the reviewers' comments and a lot of information was added to clarify possible questions and ambiguities.
We have highlighted all modifications related to comments in the modified document. We have honestly processed all comments and modified them according to your proposal.
Once again, thank you very much for your comment and suggestions for improvement. We really appreciate it.
Among other things, we have added and edited these points directly to your comment:
- The specific number of the research sample was added in the "Research sample" section. In the description of data acquisition, information was also added.
- Some directions of the research were supplemented, as well as modified results based on the recommendation of another reviewer. They are marked in yellow.
- The future direction of the research was added to the conclusions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic addressed is relevant for the scientific literature and society. Consideration of sustainability issues in theconstruction sector is relevant to achieve a more sustainable planet and more healthy life conditions. Consequently, it is directly linked to SDG's. In this sense, the paper is of great relevance.
However, there are some issues that must be considered and fixed in order to have a new version of the document.
These are my comments.
Line 24 and line 239. The authors used Spearmon correlation instead of Spearman. Please, correct it.
Lines 72 and 73. The authors said: “Available statistics indicate a high share of construction waste production, up to 10 billion tons”. Is this data result of a measurement at world level or in a certain country or region? Please, specify. The same happens with the statement in lines 96 and 97.
Lines 139 to 141: The authors said: “The main aim of the research is to analyze the impact of the use of BIM technologies in Slovakia, Croatia, and Slovenia on selected sustainability indicators in the management of construction projects in the context of economic sustainability”. In this regard, given the fact that the authors have declared their intention to investigate economic sustainability, a paragraph is expected that analyses the relationship between the indicators used and social suitability. This could be inserted into the results section.
Section 2.3. Data Collection and Processing. The sample size must be better justified in order to declare that the results are valid for the population.
Line 234 to 235: The authors said: “The dependence between the variables was investigated through correlation analysis, another tool for clarifying the results, and regression analysis.”.
First, the presence of correlation does not mean dependence. The presence of correlation indicates linear relationship between each pair of variables. In addition, the coefficient used was Spearman’s rho. This coefficient serves to correlate rankings and therefore, the one that is most suitable for this research is the Pearson’s coefficient. Please, take a look to this paper: “De Winter, Gosling, and Potter. (2016). Comparing the Pearson and Spearman Correlation Coefficients Across Distributions and Sample Sizes: A Tutorial Using Simulations and Empirical Data” Psychological Methods, Vol. 21, No. 3, 273–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000079
In addition, the authors mentioned the use of regression analysis, and the results of this analysis are not presented in the document. Furthermore, the presence of a high correlation between the variables causes multicollinearity in the regression analysis. If the authors finally decide to present the results of the regression analysis, the collinearity must be addressed, as well as the tests required for this method.
Line 221: “Cronbach's alpha was used in the research to verify the appropriateness and relevance of all research questions”. The values of the Cronbach's alpha do not appear in any section of the document.
Line 227: “…the normality of the distribution was carried out for each research area”. The method used in this paper is comprised within descriptive statistics, therefore, the normality is not required, unless that the variables would be utilised in the regression analysis. Notwithstanding, within the regression analysis, the normality is verified upon the “errors”, not for the initial variables. The author’s need to better justify the necessity of the normality in their study.
Line 282. NACE appears in the document. The full name, not just the acronym, must be given.
Line 300 to 305. In my opinion, this paragraph does not represent a limitation, but a strength of the research. Please, consider the possibility of move it to another section. The analysis carried out in countries with similar economic development helps to extent the results to other countries with the same situation.
Line 381. Table X. Please, insert the number of the table.
Lines 384 to 385: “However, these results were not statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level.” How. This result affects your findings.
Table 5, Line 423 and 431. Use DW or DMM, not both.
Line 444. “There was also a strongly dependent relationship between…”. Please, note that correlation does not imply dependence as has been pointed out previously.
Line 452. The word “apparatus” should be replaced for another.
Conclusions: The conclusion section is well written. However, given that a new method must be used, Pearson’s correlation instead of Spearman. The performance of linear regression. Maybe the results change and, therefore, it affects the conclusions.
Line 510. Please, avoid the use of “impact” when describing the results of the correlation, as they represent linear relationship instead of dependence.
In general, a more detailed and correct use of the statistical methods is required. It will surely improve the paper. In addition, a sample of the questionary used in an annex would be helpful.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, on behalf of the entire author team, let me thank you very much for the valuable comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. The document was extensively revised based on the reviewers' comments and a lot of information was added to clarify possible questions and ambiguities.
We have highlighted all modifications related to comments in the modified document. We have honestly processed all comments and modified them according to your proposal.
Once again, thank you very much for your comment and suggestions for improvement. We really appreciate it.
Please see the attached document in which we point out the modifications to our manuscript based on your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBased on the analysis of available literature and using the results of our own research, an interesting analysis of the impact of using building information modeling on sustainability indicators measured through costs was presented. In my opinion, the abstract could be clarified by clearly indicating what was done by adding a comment on the research results. The article should specify the time scope of the research. The authors could introduce a paragraph describing what was included in each section of the article. "The structure of the article is as follows. First, we introduced…. Next….” Moreover, the Authors could present the random selection method used. The authors could include a broader description of the methodology of the research carried out so that it does not undermine the reliability and credibility of the research. In addition, show the stages of the research procedure and the scheme for constructing the model used to indicate how the algorithm used works. In addition, the Authors should also provide a more sufficient review of the critical literature to point out the advantages and disadvantages of existing approaches and then well identify the mainstream of research. Why is the proposed approach suitable for solving the research questions? In the conclusions, it would be good to summarize all the achievements contained in the article. The summary could be supplemented with key points emerging from the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, on behalf of the entire author team, let me thank you very much for the valuable comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. The document was extensively revised based on the reviewers' comments and a lot of information was added to clarify possible questions and ambiguities.
We have highlighted all modifications related to comments in the modified document. We have honestly processed all comments and modified them according to your proposal.
Once again, thank you very much for your comment and suggestions for improvement. We really appreciate it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has implemented the corrections proposed by the reviewers of the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
first of all, I would like to thank you for your valuable information and comments.
The paper was adjusted according to comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the comments and the paper has been improved.
For further author's response, please, indicate the lilnes were the changes have been made, in spite of it appearence in a different colour.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
first of all, I would like to thank you for your valuable information and comments.
The paper was adjusted according to comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
