Barriers to Adopting Digital Technologies to Implement Circular Economy Practices in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The work needs improvement in the following areas:

1. The introduction needs improvement. The gaps in the state of research at the moment are not entirely clear. Why are you doing this study? Why CE in the construction industry? What is the general state of CE research? The state of the prior research and what’s missing should be made clear in the introduction. The authors need to address it in the introduction.

2. The authors should refer much more in the introduction and the manuscript. The current references can be enhanced, with emphasis on recent research from the last 3 to 5 years. Authors reliance on only 23 references in the manuscript is not justified.

3. It is a systematic literature review paper, where it is common to have 100 to 200 references. Just because you have excluded some papers cannot be a justification not to include them anywhere in the study. And if the specific field has so little prior research, what is the justification to do this study? If the issue is Scopus, then you have to expand your research to other indexes.

4. The authors did not state the study period. They state the end date of January 2024, but what is the start date? Why did they choose this period. Where are the justifications?

5. Authors need to improve the conclusion in a very well manner. It should be a comprehensive conclusion.

6.There is a need to present the implications of the study in a much better way. It should be presented very clearly how the current research enriches literature and contributes to practice.

7. What is the future direction of the research. What do the other researchers gain from this systematic literature review. You need to provide them with research direction in each of the dimensions that you have identified in this paper. You need to provide definite research propositions in each of the dimensions that you have identified. It should be explained in detail by including a new section in the research.

8. The limitations of the study should also be discussed properly and in sufficient detail.

English seems fine.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and please see attached the responses from authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.  The paper generally uses clear and appropriate academic language.         However, some sections might benefit from more precise terminology related to digital technologies and circular economy concepts to enhance clarity and reader comprehension.

Review the terminology used to describe digital technologies and circular economy practices to ensure specificity and accuracy. Avoid overgeneralizations and ensure that all technical terms are defined when first introduced. Change "digital technologies" to more specific terms where applicable, such as "Building Information Modeling (BIM)" or "digital twin technologies", to clarify the context.

2. Ensure that all claims, especially those related to the potential impacts of DTs on CE in the construction industry, are supported by existing research or data.   This will strengthen the paper's credibility. Change "Digital technologies hold potential to enhance" to "Research suggests that digital technologies may enhance", to temper assertions with evidence.

3. The paper addresses an important gap in the literature by focusing on barriers to DT adoption for CE in construction. However, the contribution could be further strengthened by incorporating recent case studies or emerging technologies not widely covered in existing literature.  Include recent examples of DT application in CE practices within the construction industry, especially cases demonstrating successful overcoming of identified barriers. This addition could provide practical insights and enhance the paper's originality.

4. The paper's validity is supported by a systematic literature review, yet the discussion on the applicability of findings to real-world scenarios could be expanded.  Specifically, the feasibility of overcoming identified barriers could be more rigorously assessed. Include a more detailed analysis of strategies or interventions successful in other sectors that could be adapted to the construction industry. Discuss the potential challenges and benefits of such adaptations to provide a more rounded view of the paper's applicability.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and please see attached the responses from authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Are 23 papers all the data, which exist between 2019 to 2024? If not, can the authors include more data or papers?

2. Can the authors extend the period over the last 10 years between 2014 to 2024? The reviewer is unsure that this period of 5 years is enough to represent digital technology and the circular economy in the global construction industry.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and please see attached the responses from authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

To identify barriers to adopting direct technologies to implement energy-saving practices in the building industry, the paper conducted a systematic literature review of 23 relevant papers published in the Scopus database up to January 2024. The VOS Viewer software was used to analyze the main barriers to enabling DTs to implement CE in the construction industry and identified 9 areas and 34 barriers. The study has implications for building practitioners and policy makers to adopt DTs in the construction industry to integrate CE practices. Detailed comments are as followings.

1. It is read that 'Eighty-four (84) papers were excluded in the first screening process based on titles, abstracts, and keywords.' But why these papers are called irrelevant and what the specific objective criteria are are not described.

2. The subgraphs in Figure 4 are part of the images taken from Figure 3, but the clarity of the pictures is not enough, the text is fuzzy, it is recommended to use the original map or use software reset.

3. In the third row of Table 1, an additional year 2023 is written after the person's name.

4. A total of 34 influencing factors in 9 fields are proposed in this paper. In order to make the research results more instructive for the next technological development, it is suggested to use scientific reliability or risk assessment model to conduct quantitative or semi-quantitative analysis and ranking of the importance of these factors.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and please see attached the responses from authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Your current attempt to revise the paper still has unresolved issues. I list them as follows:

1. You say that you are using 23 references due to the article selection criteria. What is stopping you from putting related references, for example in the Introduction section.

2. You are stating that you included all relevant articles till January 2024. You did not mention the start date, but your oldest reference is from 2019. Therefore, we must assume that the study period is from 2019 till 2024, January (even though you are hesitating to mention that). Regardless of the words used, the end result is that the study is from last 5 years. As a systematic literature review, it just cannot be considered sufficient. If there are so few references available in a field of research, then it has not become ripe enough to be a systematic literature review.

3. Besides there are references in this field before 2019. I am quoting an example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026

The above study is from 2018 and the Journal is indexed in both Scopus and Web of Science.

4. You have to make the best attempts to increase the sample size of the study. 23 is just too small to be considered a systematic literature review. Since you are finding so few articles, you must loosen your selection criteria to increase the sample size from 23. You can include conference proceedings in addition to articles. If both Scopus and Web of Science are not enough, then you have to go beyond them. The above are examples. Just because some method suggested, and you followed that to get 23 cannot be an acceptable explanation. Such a method would be appropriate for many other areas where there is a plethora of articles, but not here. You must utilize any appropriate strategy to increase your size of articles based on whom you did the research.

4. You attempt to conclude is not satisfactory. In a systematic literature review, it is expected to be a comprehensive conclusion, whereas it is not the case.

5. What exactly are the implications of the study towards literature and theory. It should be presented very clearly, but it does not become clear enough.

6. The future research direction is given as if this is a normal paper, not a systematic review paper. In a systematic review, future research direction is the main motivation of doing the study. You did a systematic review, so that others can get a detailed research direction. The end result of your study has to lay down a path on which future researchers can walk on. Therefore, you have to give propositions in each of the dimensions that you have identified from your systematic literature review. You should write atleast 1 paragraph for each proposition, then second para for second proposition, third para for third position, and so on. Future researchers can convert your propositions to testable hypothesis in future research. Therefore, future research direction should be a separate and comprehensive section, not clubbed with the conclusion. Further, future research direction should be the most thought-provoking section of the research.

7. The limitations of the study should be clear and comprehensive. It is not the case right now. As an example, so few studies of only 23 is an obvious limitation of this study. But you have to report properly other limitations as well.

English seems fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a good article for policymakers and construction practitioners, which helps understand the construction industry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

1. Before I go further into my review, you claim that 5 new papers were identified and included in the study, but the references in the study are still 25 as in the previous version. It should be 30 if we take your revision on face value.

2. It is still not acceptable to have a systematic literature review on 30 references even if 5 you did not quote.

3. My comment on future research direction is not addressed. It is reproduced below:

The future research direction is given as if this is a normal paper, not a systematic review paper. In a systematic review, future research direction is the main motivation of doing the study. You did a systematic review, so that others can get a detailed research direction. The end result of your study has to lay down a path on which future researchers can walk on. Therefore, you have to give propositions in each of the dimensions that you have identified from your systematic literature review. You should write atleast 1 paragraph for each proposition, then second para for second proposition, third para for third position, and so on. Future researchers can convert your propositions to testable hypothesis in future research. Therefore, future research direction should be a separate and comprehensive section, not clubbed with the conclusion. Further, future research direction should be the most thought-provoking section of the research.

I specifically wrote that you have to make a separate section of future research direction and not club it with conclusion. Then you to make propositions, which future research can address. You chose to write a systematic literature review. You cannot treat it like a normal paper and get away.

English seems fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf