A Data-Driven Approach to Trace the Development of Lean Construction in Building Projects: Topic Shift and Main Paths

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the article the authors present an interesting research path related to the analysis of “Lean Construction in Building Projects” literature. The authors’ ambition is to propose a completely objective system of literature analysis.

While appreciating the search for objectivity, it cannot be denied that in the research path proposed by the authors there remain passages in which the subjectivity of the researchers plays a decisive role. In particular, the selection of journals on which to search and the choice of search keywords are steps in which subjectivity – although guided by scientifically recognized criteria – cannot be eliminated. In particular, the restrictiveness of the criteria adopted by the authors leads to the identification of a very limited number of articles and to neglect possible interdisciplinary relationships.

This does not seem adequately highlighted in the text of the article. The authors should add a short note on this in the first part of the paragraph 2.1. Data collection and processing.

The references are cited in the text with the “Author year” style, while they should be cited with the progressive number of appearance in the text.

In the “References” paragraph, the references are arranged in alphabetical order according to the surname of the first author, while instead they should be arranged according to their order of appearance in the text.

In the text of the article, the authors refer to some articles by indicating the name of the first author only (e.g. «Thomas’ paper in 2002...» in line 319; «Sacks proposed...» in line 328), while they should write “FirstAutor et al. propose/write/…”.

In the Appendix A, the authors refer to some articles by indicating the name of the first author only, please correct.

The article has also some misspellings (e.g. in line 295 a double full stop follows the number 1992; in line 350 the name Sacks is not capitalized).

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

For your convenience, we write the response to your comments as a separate word file.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall a very interesting topic; while the topic is indeed of great value to both academia and the practitioner communities, there remain a few issues that ought to be addressed before this paper can be accepted.

I have only a few concerns about the paper and some suggestions that maybe the authors could consider:

1. In the 'Introduction' section, please make the research gap and the research objectives consistent with each other.
2. This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with authors previous works, I would like to share one published paper below. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications. However, this is a big concern for me. Put it differently, the main reason is that the majority of the manuscript aims to make a theoretical contribution and novelty that it has already been achieved elsewhere by different authors or may of the same research team:
3. Wu, H., Xue, X., Zhao, Z., Wang, Z., Shen, G. Q., & Luo, X. (2020). Major knowledge diffusion paths of megaproject management: A citation-based analysis. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 242-261.
4. The authors need to clear articulate the academic as well as practical implications of this study. I would suggest writing a paragraph in the conclusion section for the implications. Also, state few of the key implications at the end of the ‘Introduction’ section as well.
5. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.
6. How could/should futures studies improve the model?

If these revisions can be made in the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.

I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

For your convenience, we write the response to your comments as a separate word file.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx