Evaluation Study on the Application Effect of Intelligent Construction Technology in the Construction Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved (congrats). Yet, there are still some minor issues that need to be fixed before publication:

1. Minor English editing (there are still some typos)

2.  Consistency with the use of capitals (e.g., some keywords with capital letters and others no)

3.  Add a table with all the acronyms that are used in the manuscript

4. The quality of Figure 1 must be improved (Blurry and a low-quality Excel plot. Please, see your Figure 2. That is good quality)

 

The rest of the manuscript is adequate. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has improved (congrats). Yet, there are still some minor issues that need to be fixed before publication:

1. Minor English editing (there are still some typos)

2.  Consistency with the use of capitals (e.g., some keywords with capital letters and others no)

3.  Add a table with all the acronyms that are used in the manuscript

4. The quality of Figure 1 must be improved (Blurry and a low-quality Excel plot. Please, see your Figure 2. That is good quality)

 

The rest of the manuscript is adequate. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be seen that the author has made a lot of effort and added necessary content. Suggestions are as follows:

(1) The Application Effect Evaluation discussed in this article mainly focuses on the construction phase, but the evaluation of indicators does not reflect the characteristics of the construction phase. Additionally, how are the construction stages divided? Is the structure completed or about to be delivered? The text is unclear, perhaps further explanation can be provided in the first part of the text.

(2) The argumentation of the paper should conform to international academic formats, such as "four control, three control and one coordination" in L183 and "people, materials, machines, methods, and the environment" in L187.

(3) The expression about "progress control" is incorrect, it should be "schedule management".

(4) The "Intelligent Construction Technology Evaluation Indicator Dimensions" in L178 is still insufficiently discussed, insufficiently expressed, and lacks credibility. This section is particularly important.

(5) The background introduction of the case in L405 is still insufficient and lacks special features. What intelligent construction technologies are used in this project? How is it used? What is the situation with the application? I feel that the case is not very relevant to the topic of the paper.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From my point of view, this text is about an interesting research project. However, in my opinion this text is not a publishable article in its present form mainly because of the confusion regarding its structure and contents.

The structure is confusing because there are parts that lack proper explanations and justifications, as well as there are parts in unexpected locations.

For instance, there are methods applied in this project that lack a complete explanation and/or justification, such as sections 3.1 and 3.2. Section 3.1 lacks properly explaining in more detail the selection of dimensions, how did it this paper exactly, following which method, sources… Section 3.2 misses explanations and justifications about the Delphi method components and its bias control among other issues as well.

An example of unexpected location is the explanation of case study in the results section, an explanation that is also too brief for potential readers to understand the case study properly (lines 407-413), because more data and a justification of the case study are missing. Another example are the explanations of non-applied methods before explaining the applied methods, such as tables 2 and 4 in sections 3.3 and 3.7.

Related to this, the methods section and subsections lack general introductory parts explaining all the research project steps, tools and their relation and outcomes. This would also solve the problem of having headings of sections and subsections together without explanations in between.

These specific problems bring a general confusion that seriously damages the manuscript. To solve it, the reviewer considers as the only solution that the authors rewrite the whole article following a more conventional structure of Introduction, Methods, Case study, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. During this rewriting process it is crucial that the authors put the contents in its proper location and that explain and justify in detail each decision taken in the research project. The reviewer considers essential that the authors study in detail related scientific papers before the authors rewrite their manuscript. It is also essential that the parts rely on each other, for example, that the conclusions rely on the discussion, that relies on the results…

In any case, the structure of the paper needs to be briefly explained at the end of the introduction in order to be easier for potential readers to understand the article. In this version section 2 repeats somehow, the part of section 1 from lines 50 to 100. From the reviewer’s point of view, these two parts require to be merged and redefine the aim of the article so it is more feasible for a research article. For instance, the aim of the paper, lines 99-103, is too ambitious for a research paper. This introductory part should avoid giving a second abstract of the article like in lines 159-176.

Discussion lacks comparing the results with previous related technical literature, for example the related references in section 1 and 2.

Conclusions need rewriting. Some parts are not findings from this research paper, such as lines 576-582. Besides, it requires being written in a more straight to the point writing style to clearly point out the main findings of this research project as well as its boundaries and future works.

 

Specific comments:

The title needs rewriting to be more understandable.

Rethink the keywords so they not repeat words from the title so the it enhances the future potential diffusion of the article. Reorganize them from general to particular.

Figure 1 is far away from its first mention.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From my point of view, this text is about an interesting research project. This modified version is better though this text is not a publishable article yet in its present form mainly because there is still confusion regarding its structure and contents.

The structure is confusing because there are parts that lack proper explanations and justifications, as well as there are parts in unexpected locations.

For instance, there are methods applied in this project that this modified version still lack a complete explanation and/or justification. For example, section 3.2 miss explanations and justifications about the Delphi method components and its bias control among other issues as well. For instance, obviously respecting the anonymity: how were the panelists chosen? By giving points to which parameters? Which were their expertise and qualifications? Specialties? Degrees? Number of experts/panelists? How many rounds of Delphi? When was the consensus calculated and reached?

An example of unexpected location is still in this modified version the explanation of case study in the results section, now in subsection 3.1, an explanation that is not enough for potential readers to understand the case study properly, because more data and a justification of the case study are missing. Another example are still in this modified version the explanations of non-applied methods before explaining the applied methods, such as tables 3 and 6.

Related to this, the methods section and subsections general introductory parts explaining all the research project steps, tools and their relation and outcomes lacks clarity. General explanation or diagrams, brief but clear would improve this confusion. There are still headings of sections and subsections together without explanations in between.

These specific problems bring a general confusion that seriously damages the manuscript. To solve it, the reviewer still considers as the only solution that the authors rewrite the whole article following a more conventional structure of Introduction, Methods, Case study, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. During this rewriting process it is crucial that the authors put the contents in its proper location and that explain and justify in detail each decision taken in the research project. The reviewer considers essential that the authors study in detail related scientific papers before the authors rewrite their manuscript. It is also essential that the parts rely on each other, for example, that the conclusions rely on the discussion, that relies on the results…

In any case, in this modified version, the structure of the paper needs to be briefly explained at the end of the introduction in order to be easier for potential readers to understand the article. This introductory part should avoid giving a second abstract of the article like in lines 154-168. Instead, three lines maximum briefly explaining the sections of the paper and its contents would guide potential authors through its reading.

Discussion lacks comparing the results with previous related technical literature, for example the related references in section 1 and 2. The authors have added a final paragraph that only refers vaguely to it without referring either to specific references or specific data.

Conclusions have improved although still have some parts that are neither findings from this research paper, nor are being written in a straighter to the point writing style to clearly point out the main findings of this research project as well as its boundaries and future works. This is the case of the first paragraph and the first bullet point, which are like unnecessary second and third abstracts that jeopardize the rigor and quality of the paper.

 

Specific comments:

Figure 1 is far away from its first mention in the text.

This text has informal expressions that diminish its scientific character. P.e. “we” in lines 191, 749, 753

Author Response

Thank you very much for revising this manuscript again and for your noble comments, as well as for your affirmation of the last revision of the manuscript, in which some of the problems were due to a lack of clarity in my understanding, which led to an incomplete revision. Through your revision, I have reorganized the structure of the manuscript, found some areas that I did not realize before, and searched for articles in related research directions in this journal to read, and finally made comprehensive revisions to the content of this manuscript, which are described in the following article-by-article responses, which I would like to invite you to review once again.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From my point of view, this text is about an interesting research project. The authors have improved this version significantly following the reviewers’ comments. This version is ready to be considered for publishing after the authors make a final review and correct minor things such as table 4, Degree of influence, and put it in English Language characters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Application Effect Evaluation of Intelligent Construction Technology Based on Cloud Matter Element” addresses the impact of digital application of intelligent construction technology within building construction processes, with a focus on items life cycle and sustainability, which agrees with the scope of the journal sustainability. The novelty should be better explained and the text and figures should be improved. My major concerns are two: (i) the novelty of this article; and (ii) the quality of the analysis over the results. Yet, the manuscript still contributes to this incipient area. My recommendation is to publish this manuscript after addressing the following comments:

·       There are several typos (e.g.,” sustainable construction Combining” with a missing dot between construction and combining)

·       Define each acronyms the first time they are shown (e.g., BIM, building information modelling)

·       Figure 1 has some non-English characters

·       The introduction is missing some relevant recent papers on this area such as (please cite and discuss):

o   Malgıt, Berk, et al. "A generative design-to-BIM workflow for minimum weight plane truss design." Revista de la construcción 21.2 (2022): 473-492

o   Pan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: A critical review and future trends. Automation in Construction, 122, 103517.

o   Coelho dos Santos, Francielle, Michele Tereza Marques Carvalho, and Maria Carolina Gomes de Oliveira Brandstetter. "Tool for the integration of building performance information within the BIM process." Revista de la construcción 21.3 (2022): 645-657.

·       Please, clearly states the novelty if the study as well as the objectives and the organization of the manuscript by the end of the introduction or literature review

·       Please, write in present or past tense. (e.g., “this paper will extract the evaluation indexes from six dimensions, namely, 141 progress management” is not correct)

·       Please provide a table summarizing the main differences between the different models mentioned (e.g., G1 method, entropy weight method, portfolio weights)

·       Figure 2 also has Chinese characters

·       Analyses lack basic material background (e.g., there are few things that can be related to previous research). Analyses are merely descriptive.

·       Conclusion are very short, and, again, merely descriptive. Please improve this.

 

After these improvements I would suggest accepting this manuscript for publication in sustainability

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript entitled “Application Effect Evaluation of Intelligent Construction Technology Based on Cloud Matter Element” addresses the impact of digital application of intelligent construction technology within building construction processes, with a focus on items life cycle and sustainability, which agrees with the scope of the journal sustainability. The novelty should be better explained and the text and figures should be improved. My major concerns are two: (i) the novelty of this article; and (ii) the quality of the analysis over the results. Yet, the manuscript still contributes to this incipient area. My recommendation is to publish this manuscript after addressing the following comments:

·       There are several typos (e.g.,” sustainable construction Combining” with a missing dot between construction and combining)

·       Define each acronyms the first time they are shown (e.g., BIM, building information modelling)

·       Figure 1 has some non-English characters

·       The introduction is missing some relevant recent papers on this area such as (please cite and discuss):

o   Malgıt, Berk, et al. "A generative design-to-BIM workflow for minimum weight plane truss design." Revista de la construcción 21.2 (2022): 473-492

o   Pan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: A critical review and future trends. Automation in Construction, 122, 103517.

o   Coelho dos Santos, Francielle, Michele Tereza Marques Carvalho, and Maria Carolina Gomes de Oliveira Brandstetter. "Tool for the integration of building performance information within the BIM process." Revista de la construcción 21.3 (2022): 645-657.

·       Please, clearly states the novelty if the study as well as the objectives and the organization of the manuscript by the end of the introduction or literature review

·       Please, write in present or past tense. (e.g., “this paper will extract the evaluation indexes from six dimensions, namely, 141 progress management” is not correct)

·       Please provide a table summarizing the main differences between the different models mentioned (e.g., G1 method, entropy weight method, portfolio weights)

·       Figure 2 also has Chinese characters

·       Analyses lack basic material background (e.g., there are few things that can be related to previous research). Analyses are merely descriptive.

·       Conclusion are very short, and, again, merely descriptive. Please improve this.

 

After these improvements I would suggest accepting this manuscript for publication in sustainability

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic of the paper is good and the research idea is clear, but there are some problems, as follows:

1. Literature review（P2L89）: The references are relatively simple, the sources should be oriented to the views of international scholars, and the literature citations are one-sided; In addition, BIM technology is only an important technology of intelligent construction technology, but it cannot represent intelligent construction technology；

2.The overall analysis of the paper is not deep enough, the research content and purpose are vague, and the research method is too discussed；

3.In P4-L141 to 143, what is the basis for setting 6 dimensions and 22 evaluation indicators? The scientific research methods used are lacking；

4.The overall structural design and discussion of the paper do not conform to the international paper paradigm；

5.The theoretical argument in L232 is not clear and can be further explained;

6.The basis on which the values in Table 3 of L262 are established is not clearly explained;

7.The background information of the case is lacking, the analysis of the conclusion part of L356 is not in-depth enough, and the format of the paper can be further modified. For example, "6" in L356 and "1" in L357.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The writing and structure of the paper make it very hard to follow. Many critical items are not easily made clear. The paper has several shortcomings that go beyond the scope of a revision. The following comments are suggested:

-       The writing of the paper could benefit from a major revision. Many statements are unclear and/or their message is not clear.

-       There seems to be a repetition of ideas that need to be unified across the introduction and literature review sections.

-       The knowledge gap based on previous literature, such as on lines 76 to 8 and lines 121 to 125, is unclear.

-       The contributions of the paper, which are mentioned on lines 81-86 and lines 125-137, are not well defined.

-       Similarly, the objectives of the paper and its hypotheses are not well defined.

-       The reasoning behind the methodology, such as why the G1 method and the cloud point method, is also not made clear.

-       Overall, the paper would benefit from having a general outline of the steps of the methodology, to make it easier for the reader.

-       Line 179, who are the experts who assessed the weights? Are they the same as online 148, or are they experts from the project mentioned on line 81?

-       All figures need to be translated into English for international readers.

-       All headings should be revised to be camel-case. e.g. line 192.

-       In the keywords part (line 21): “G1 methodl” has an extra “l” at the end.

-       Line 16-17: “[…] and the trend of enveloping further to 4 star is not obvious, and the overall application effect is general.”. It is not clear what this statement is saying.

-       Line 294: “In order to verify the scientific [?] of the Combined Empowerment-Cloud matter element […]”. Missing a part.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be revised for language and to clarify unclear statements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx