Developing a Conceptual Model for Promoting Risk Management for Public–Private Partnerships Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting topic regarding developing a conceptual model for promoting risk management for public private partnership projects. The language and style of writing is clear and adhere to academic standards.

The abstract and introduction of the paper is good and provides the solid background data regarding the main goals of the paper. The aim of the paper is clearly presented through three pillars:

 (1) To provide insights for directing further research on RM-PPP by examining the current states research of the RM-PPP and emerging topics over the period under examination;

 (2) To explore knowledge hotpots in the implementation of RM-PPP and

 (3) To propose a conceptual model integrated the risk management and basic information of the PPP to provide insights for directing further RM-PPP research and improve the existing practices of RM-PPP

Unfortunately, the results and conclusion of the paper do not follow introduction and the aim of the paper. More precisely, in the middle part of the paper (from row 62) up to the conclusion (to row 469) the authors describe literature review and analysis of keywords from database and not follow the aim of the paper. For example, in section 3. Methodology – it is not clear how the conceptual model is developed? Just by searching and visual inspection of the data? The methodological framework must clearly correspond to the initial objectives of the paper, which in this case does not.

 The research in the paper is qualitatively presented, however, it does not correspond to the initial objectives of the paper in the introductory chapter as well as in the concluding part.

 In view of the above, I propose a significant change in the introductory chapter in such a way that the objectives of the research match the text of the paper, as well as the conclusion.

 I suggest the author’s work on these issues and submit a new more detailed version of the paper to the journal when ready.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comment

Author Response

Please see the attachment .Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

The title of the paper is not informative " what is meant by risk management in PPP?" and " which area in the risk management of PPP projects?". There are several review studies on the same topic; so, what is the new?

Abstract

1.     The abstract is very poor and not informative and very short. I read it; however, I can not understand its scope, objectives main findings and contrition. It looks as a methodology.  

Keywords

1.     Some of the utilized words are generalized without a specific focus on a specific area in risk management in PPP projects.

Introduction

1.     The section is too short and not informative about PPP, comprising its definition, contributions, and challenges causing the risk. Moreover, your statement that "Even though……………RM-PPP" is not accurate and can not support the novelty of your works. This is owing to the fact that there are several studies in the same area.

2.     What is the knowledge gap that your work will address?  

Background of the study

Background of PPP:

1.     Some abbreviations have been listed without their definition.

2.     I can not understand the importance of listing the definition of PPP and some PPP models along with their features in this section.

Risk and Risk Management in PPP

1.     You listed the definition of the risk, their evolution, some of their consequences, and allocation. These are basics in the area of risk management. We don’t know which area in different types of PPP projects or risks you will focus on. Similarly, we can not know your issue or the contributions of the prior works.    

Methodology  

1.     Figure 1 is not clear.

2.     Why you select the methodology of Ma et al. You must justify your methodology as well as all of its related stages.

3.     Do not use pronouns like " we".

4.     How you filtered the download papers?

5.     Figure 2 is not clear.

Results and Discussion

1.     All the figures are not clear.

2.     The arrangement and presentation of the sections are not well. For example, you listed the top 30 production authors with section 4.1.2.

Conclusion

1.     The conclusion must be the last section in the paper. Further, it is very short and not informative about the paper.

2.     The conceptual model is not clear, and it has not been discussed to know its formation, importance, and contribution to knowledge body.

3.     Contributions and limitations have to be before the conclusion section. The contributions summarize the paper, what are their theoretical and practical implications. Further, the limitations are not strong and sound for being considered.

4.     There is a contradiction between the statements in the "major contributions" and "Limitation and future research direction". See line 505 to 508 and 520 to 523.

5.     In 520 and 521 what is the limitation of VOSViewer

  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores risk management in PPPs by conducting a systematic literature review. The manuscript sets out three primary objectives: to provide insights into the current state of research on risk management in PPPs, to identify key knowledge areas and emerging topics within this field, and to propose a conceptual model that integrates risk management with fundamental aspects of PPPs. To achieve these goals, the researchers conducted a knowledge mapping analysis using VOSViewer software, analyzing 416 relevant publications. They used a bibliometric analysis of publications from the Scopus database from 1990 to September 2023 to identify trends and future research directions. The authors argue that successful implementation of PPP projects requires well-structured and effective risk management strategies, which are crucial for enhancing project performance. This analysis revealed six main research interests and various perspectives and methodologies in existing literature.

Overall, I believe the authors have made a reasonable effort, and the results can be beneficial and insightful for other researchers. However, the manuscript has some shortcomings that need to be addressed by the authors:

1. The abstract starts by stating the research objective. It might be better to begin this section with the research problem statement (although I leave this to the authors' discretion).

2. The methodology details should be more precisely mentioned in the abstract.

3. The study's contribution should be explicitly emphasized in the abstract.

4- The arguments presented in the introduction's first and second paragraphs are insufficient to explain the reasons for the need for this study (and its importance).

5. Rewrite the first sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction. "… there is a growing interest in risks …".

6. The literature review section needs a fundamental revision. A broader and more up-to-date range of sources should be reviewed.

7. Correct the grammatical error in Figure 1.

8. In the first stage of the methodology, what was the reason for selecting the keywords and subject areas?

9- In the second stage, the exclusion of "irrelevant articles" is mentioned. What were the characteristics of these articles?

10- I did not understand the criteria for entry into the second stage, the inclusion criteria. What are these criteria?

11. The quality of the presented images needs improvement.

12. What is the relationship between the second half of the conclusion section and your research and findings?

13. Use more recent references throughout the text. Many references (such as 1, 4, 6, 8, etc.) need to be replaced with more up-to-date ones.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript's text is so poor that it makes readers indisposed to follow it. An English language expert should essentially edit it.

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The language is very poor.

2.     Clarify your response on a point-by-point basis to know the corresponding changes in the paper.

3.     Do not use "we".

4.     The abstract is very poor and not informative about its contribution to the knowledge body in the area of risk management considering the PPP projects.

5.     Your work is not accurate. For example. You summarized the work of "Akomea-Frimpong et al." in 90 to 93. However, this is inaccurate summary of this work.

6.     You listed in line 179 "inclusion criteria". What are these criteria.

7.     The paper must have separated sections, comprising:

·        Discussion (must be sufficient with significant and contributions to scholars and practitioners).

·        Practical implications.

·        Limitations and future research directions.

·        Conclusion

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Poor.

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx