The Role of BIM in Managing Risks in Sustainability of Bridge Projects: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper tackles a crucial subject matter highly relevant to its intended readership. However, the authors are encouraged to avoid stating the obvious, such as the significance of bridges as critical infrastructure. Such statements are repeated in the abstract and conclusions and one does not require such an extensive literature research to establish this fact. Therefore, I recommend a revision of both the abstract and conclusions.

The conclusions should not merely reiterate the paper's content and the steps taken but should instead draw meaningful insights from the work conducted. While the methodology and overall approach are scientifically sound, there are some notable gaps that need addressing. For instance, the paper should clarify how the main themes were derived and what criteria were applied.

Furthermore, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the technical aspects related to the risks associated with the achievement of more sustainable bridge projects. This could involve discussing the support provided by software tools aimed at enhancing sustainability in bridge projects. However, the overall structure and division of sustainability, which is the focus of the paper are well articulated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text requires enhancements to enhance clarity and readability. The current title is not very clear, authors might consider whether it would be more effective to use the heading row of the table 5 as the basis for the title, resulting in: "The role of BIM in managing risks in sustainability of bridge projects: systematic review with meta-analysis" Additionally, certain sentences lack readability, with frequent use of "it" in contexts where its reference is unclear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A comprehensive review have been conducted in this paper, on the topic of BIM in managing risks for more sustainable bridge projects, where the study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of bridge sustainability, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, with the objective of enhancing comprehension of the significance of utilizing building information modelling (BIM) in bridge projects. It investigates how effective implementation of this technology can prevent and mitigate risks, thereby augmenting sustainability. Before the acceptance, a few comments need to be addressed,

The introduction section should be enriched by integrating recent publications on building information modelling in bridges, particularly focusing on bridge management.

In Section 2.4, presenting the journal names and geographical regions (country/region) for all 26 references would be beneficial. This approach would inform readers about the most pertinent journals to the topic and identify the countries or regions that have contributed the majority of these publications.

Figure 1 lacks clarity and should be substituted with a version of higher resolution for better readability.

It would be beneficial to include a presentation of all BIM technologies, such as platforms like Revit, among others.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability- 2819507

Comments to the Authors

            I have now completed my review of the manuscript titled “BIM in managing risks for more sustainable bridge projects: a systematic review with meta-analysis”. The paper systematically reviews bridge sustainability, particularly emphasizing the role of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in enhancing bridge project efficiency and sustainability. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, it evaluates BIM's importance in risk management and sustainable development in bridge construction and maintenance. The review highlights BIM's contributions in this field. The conclusion underscores BIM's transformative impact on sustainable bridge projects.

Overall, the paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to the journal and will be relevant to its audience. However, it is necessary to further strengthen the paper contextually and theoretically on some critical issues. These issues need to be addressed and clarified to enhance the paper's quality further. Comments on the specific issues are provided below for the author to consider.

1.     What tool did the authors use to formulate a research question (e.g., SPIDER, etc.)? The authors should address this issue in the manuscript.

2.     The research protocol should be justified in the manuscript. By clearly outlining and justifying the research protocol, the authors provide transparency about their methodology.

3.     Protocol registration should be done at an early stage, guarantees transparency in the research process, and protects from duplication problems. Registering the protocol of a systematic review at an early stage is a highly recommended practice in research.

4.     Abstract analysis should be conducted to filter the articles where the criteria are to identify the articles by industry, aim and research methodology, and keywords that play a decisive role in selecting suitable articles.

5.     Content analysis should be conducted to identify the final set of articles to be included in the study based on the relevance of the selected papers' research aim and question to the proposed study.

6.     The key step in a systematic review is the quality appraisal of the included studies. The authors should explain the technique used in this study (e.g., quality scales, checklists). The quality appraisal of included studies is a crucial step in a systematic review, as it assesses the reliability and validity of the findings. It's important for authors to clearly explain the techniques they used for this quality appraisal.

7.     The authors mention that thematic analysis is conducted in this study. This method needs to be explained in detail (Clarke et al., 2015).

8.     The study should adopt quality evaluation tools to describe the potential sources of bias within studies (e.g., selection, performance, transfer, detection, publication, and study design, etc.). It is imperative for the study to incorporate quality evaluation tools that are capable of identifying and describing potential sources of bias within the included studies. These tools serve as a critical mechanism for assessing the integrity and reliability of the findings.

            The reviewer wishes that the above comments could be of some help for the authors to improve the paper.

Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, 3, 222-248.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

All comments have been addressed by the authors. The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has beenThe paper has been improved to an acceptable level.