Institutional Factors Impacting on International Construction Market Selection: Evidence from Chinese Contractors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Paragraph 2 Methodology needs to be rewritten. There are mixed processes and hypotheses.
2.  In the paper, the authors must be mentions the possibility of applying the proposed approach outside China.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focuses on institutional factors that influence Chinese contractors' market selection. Overall, the paper is presented in a logical manner and is easy to follow. I have some comments that the authors should consider:

1. Abstract: Add a sentence or very short explanation to describe the meaning of institutional factors in the beginning of the abstract.
2. Abstract: The last sentence is intended to show the implications of the research, but it is currently very broad. More specific implications or contributions to knowledge/practice should be added.
3. The heading of section 2 called methodology must be deleted. The content is not about methodology, but it lists the aim and objectives of the research. The research objectives should be revised as well and should not simply show the steps in conducting the research. This aim and objectives should then be addressed or answered in the conclusion section.
4. The gap in the introduction can be strengthened. There has been research on institutional factors and contractors' market selection as shown in the literature review section. What's the difference between this research and past research?
5. There are some grammatical mistakes scattered throughout the paper. The authors should re-read the paper and fix mistakes accordingly.
6. The results are interesting. I feel that the discussion can be deepened to show the importance of the results. After finding those institutional factors, what are the implications to theory and practice? How can the findings contribute to knowledge and practice? Why are the results different from past theories? For instance, does the context (Chinese contractors) have any influence on the results?
7. As I mentioned earlier, the conclusion should be linked with the aim and objectives set in the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read the paper on the effect of institutional factors on the international construction market. The analysis is based on the example of China, but it is also important for other contractors who are carrying out (or intending to carry out) giant projects and project participants, which come from multiple sources. These characteristics determine that the construction market needs more rules and regulations to ensure the behavior of all participants in the project.

The selected variables are tested for the period 2011-2015. However, global reviews report that in recent years the global market has changed dramatically, with COVID-19 having a profound impact on economies around the world.

The pandemic situation forced owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers to review and identify contract clauses. Although, with current construction activity nearly back to pre-pandemic levels, we still have a shortage in skilled labor, material prices on the rise, and project delays. Implications for construction projects are significant due to the multi-faceted components of construction projects. Since the period considered in the article is limited to the analysis of data from 2011 to 2015, I wonder if the conclusions and insights of the study could be applied in the current context. I and the readers are interested in the opinions and insights of the authors.

Even if the study was conducted during the aforementioned period, why do the sources analyzed in the article end in 2018 and 2019? The article should be supplemented with up-to-date references, thus showing its relevance in the current context.

I agree that this study is completed and will not be changed by the authors, but the authors need to take into account the pandemic and post-pandemic market situation and assess the impact of the objects analyzed. Variables such as GDP/GDP growth and competition (analyzed in the article) have been affected in recent years.

In my opinion, the article is not ready for publication. The authors should review and improve the paper according to the specific comments given.

There are some inaccuracies in the text. Equation (1) is written using the equation function. Model 1 (see Eq. (2)) and Model 2 (see Eq. (3)) also need to be written using the equation function because the models are formulas.

All variables in the text and tables (see from line 306, some are highlighted in yellow) need to be written with a subscript, i.e., IMS_ij, ME_ij, etc.

The conclusions are too ambitious considering the analysis period. Limitations of this study should be added in terms of generalization of the findings. Researchers and practitioners are interested not only in the experience of other countries or companies but also in how the insights from the survey could be applied to their own construction projects.

Finally, I cannot recommend the paper for publication in the present form. The authors should improve the article and demonstrate the exclusivity and relevance of their research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for responding to the comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors put considerable effort in responding to the comments. The article has been supplemented in terms of both structure and content. I believe that the updated conclusions and limitations are valuable not only for the authors of the article but also for other scholars when choosing new research directions. The paper is suitable for publication in its present form.