Integrated Building Maintenance and Safety Framework: Educational and Public Facilities Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is significant and worth to be investigated. Several comments are suggested to improve the manuscript: 

• The linkages between sentences and headings are weak, make the reader difficult to follow the flow of the research. Improvements are needed. 
• Proofreading is required.
• The following articles might be valuable to be cited in regards to maintenance priority:
  • https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2018-0265
  • https://kuwaitjournals.org/jer/index.php/JER/article/view/5494 
• The justification on research method is weak. Perhaps to cite the references and explain why are the methods selected. 
• Abbreviation like BRI in line 236 should be provided in full term as it is first mentioned in the manuscript.
• Lack of elaboration on the field survey, including the respondent selection requirements, example of questions, survey population and sample size, sampling method, etc. 
• Appendix I is not included in the submission.
• The literature review is somehow not strong enough, implicating poor cross-referencing of literature in the findings and discussion.

Author Response

Dear respected guest editor Professor Ana Silva and eviewers,

 

The authors thank all of you for being dedicated to the review process and for the constructive comments.

 Below the responses to the reviewers' comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Reviewer 1:

We thank the reviewer for deep, comprehensive, and constructive suggestions!

Following are response to the suggestions and remarks.

 

The topic is significant and worth to be investigated. Several comments are suggested to improve the manuscript: 

• The linkages between sentences and headings are weak, make the reader difficult to follow the flow of the research. Improvements are needed. 

 

R. The linkages between the headings and body of the sections have been strengthened with introductory pharses (Please see Lines 154-155, 157-158, 175-176, 218, 250-251, 271-277 etc.)

 

• Proofreading is required.

      R Comprehensive proofreading was carried out.

 

• The following articles might be valuable to be cited in regards to maintenance priority:
• https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2018-0265
• https://kuwaitjournals.org/jer/index.php/JER/article/view/5494 

 

R .  The references have been reviewed and integrated into the literature review in paragraph 1.3 Maintenance, please see lines 247-248.

 

• The justification on research method is weak. Perhaps to cite the references and explain why are the methods selected. 

 

R   - The research method rationale and justification has been elaborated: Please see revisions along paragraph 3 Research Method – lines 285-289, 299, 295-296, and 303-307.

 

• Abbreviation like BRI in line 236 should be provided in full term as it is first mentioned in the manuscript.

R - Done (Line 310).

 

• Lack of elaboration on the field survey, including the respondent selection requirements, example of questions, survey population and sample size, sampling method, etc. 

R - Field survey methodology is described in details in Paragraph 3 lines: 303-307.

 

• Appendix I is not included in the submission.

 

R Appendix has been added to the manuscript (Lines 633-637)

• The literature review is somehow not strong enough, implicating poor cross-referencing of literature in the findings and discussion.

 

R - Cross referencing has been strengthened and improved (Lines 247-248, 288, 290, 517-543)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Improving the safety of public facilities (especially educational facilities) is clearly necessary and the thesis is of great importance in terms of topic selection. However, there are certain problems with the writing of the thesis.

 

1. It is a well-known conclusion that there is a link between the maintenance and safety of public facilities. The innovative aspects of the paper are not clearly expressed.

 

2. The abstract of the paper is not very logical and is not sufficiently concise.

 

3. The introduction part of the paper does not flow well with the research questions based on existing research, and it is not clear how the research in this paper relates to existing research.

 

4. Section 2 is not very appropriate as a literature review. It would be more appropriate to place it in the research design section.

 

5. Are the definitions in section 2.1 necessary? The concepts are relatively straightforward to understand.

 

6. The standards, codes and regulations in section 2.2 are clearly not part of the literature review and it is not evident that they serve any purpose.

 

7. Sections 2.3 - 2.5 are merely an introduction to the research that has been done. No conclusive comments are drawn to establish a link with the research in this paper and it is not clear what the authors are trying to say.

 

8. The stages and methods of research expressed in Figure 1 are not very rigorous. The research methodology should be a step-by-step development of the means and methods used to address the research question, but the literature review and the presentation of the research methodology clearly do not fall into the category of research methodology.

 

9. The first paragraph of Part 3 should be the research framework for the whole text, rather than the research stages and methods, and would be more appropriately placed at the end of Part 1.

 

10. On what basis are the research hypotheses derived?

 

11. Why only 3.1 and not 3.2 or more? Why is there no Figure 2?

 

12. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are too short and should be further discussed in relation to the findings. For example, what do the safety risk indicators in the different sections tell us? What are the safety hazards demonstrated in Figures 5 and 6?

 

13. The discussion and conclusion in section 6 can be split, with the discussion being a separate section focusing on the findings of the study. The conclusions can be integrated with Section 7.

 

14. There are a number of problems with references and the message "Error! Reference source not found" appears, so please check this carefully.

Author Response

Dear respected guest editor Professor Ana Silva and reviewers,

 

The authors thank all of you for being dedicated to the review process and for the constructive comments.

 Below the responses to the reviewers' comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Reviewer 2:

Improving the safety of public facilities (especially educational facilities) is clearly necessary and the thesis is of great importance in terms of topic selection. However, there are certain problems with the writing of the thesis.

 

1. It is a well-known conclusion that there is a link between the maintenance and safety of public facilities. The innovative aspects of the paper are not clearly expressed.

 

R - The innovation of the research is that the linkage between safety and maintenance of public facilities is investigated on the basis of a performance framework, it has been validated by inferential statistics with high level of significance. An innovative Integrated Safety-Maintenance performance framework was developed for synergetic safety-maintenance monitoring, control and management. The framework proposes a cycle loop of safety-maintenance-performance audits of facilities as a key tool for advanced and effective maintenance and safety management in public facilities.

These points are stated in the abstract and in the discussion and conclusion. The manuscript proposes a novel model and protocol for synergetic safety-maintenance of educational and public facilities.

2. The abstract of the paper is not very logical and is not sufficiently concise.

• The abstract has been substantially revised to sharpen the research novelty and for conciseness (Lines 13-38).

3. The introduction part of the paper does not flow well with the research questions based on existing research, and it is not clear how the research in this paper relates to existing research.

• The introduction was modified in light of the reviewer remark: it begins with a statement of the importance of the research question (91-103), follows with hypothesis, the research methods and objectives and summarizes with the gap that this research aims to close. (Lines 271-283).

4. Section 2 is not very appropriate as a literature review. It would be more appropriate to place it in the research design section.

• Done as proposed (Lines 153-269).

5. Are the definitions in section 2.1 necessary? The concepts are relatively straightforward to understand.

• The authors definitely see the importance of the definitions of the core concepts of research and the cross references as an important phase that develops the importance and inherent integration between the concepts in the manuscript and the model. Therefore, we believe that this section deserves to be at the beginning of the review.

6. The standards, codes and regulations in section 2.2 are clearly not part of the literature review and it is not evident that they serve any purpose.

• The section has been omitted, though we maintained a sentence emphasizing that the adherence of the procedures developed to the definitions of ISO/DIS 45001 [48] and the guidelines of ISO 14001 and OSH 2001: Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. (Line 287-289).

7. Sections 2.3 - 2.5 are merely an introduction to the research that has been done. No conclusive comments are drawn to establish a link with the research in this paper and it is not clear what the authors are trying to say.

• This review of the concepts of risk factors, maintenance, and safety indicators reveals a gap in the integration between risk, maintenance and safety for synergetic and integrated maintenance and safety management of facilities and indicates the research gap. This statement has been added to conclude paragraph 1.4 at the end of introduction (Lines 272-275).

8. The stages and methods of research expressed in Figure 1 are not very rigorous. The research methodology should be a step-by-step development of the means and methods used to address the research question, but the literature review and the presentation of the research methodology clearly do not fall into the category of research methodology.

• The research followed five stages (excluding the literature review as suggested by this reviewer). The key stages and findings of the research were validated by rigorous statistical tools: correlation coefficient and Analysis of Variance with high levels of significance on real world data. These points are described along section 3.

9. The first paragraph of Part 3 should be the research framework for the whole text, rather than the research stages and methods, and would be more appropriately placed at the end of Part 1.

• Done as suggested, the research framework is presented at the Introduction section (Lines 120-150).

10. On what basis are the research hypotheses derived?

• The research hypotheses are derived on the basis of the review of state-of-the-art literature review and the research gap summarized at the end of paragraph 1 (Lines 272-283).

11. Why only 3.1 and not 3.2 or more? Why is there no Figure 2?

• Respected reviewer, paragraph 3.1 was joined to the introduction along with the two figures (2 and 3 now 1 and 2).

13. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are too short and should be further discussed in relation to the findings. For example, what do the safety risk indicators in the different sections tell us? What are the safety hazards demonstrated in Figures 5 and 6?

• Thanks for the comment! Sections 4.1 and 4.2 were elaborated with further discussions of the findings (Lines 451-456).

14. The discussion and conclusion in section 6 can be split, with the discussion being a separate section focusing on the findings of the study. The conclusions can be integrated with Section 7.

• Done as suggested (Lines 518-618). 

15. There are a number of problems with references and the message "Error! Reference source not found" appears, so please check this carefully.

 

• Done, all references are with correct sources.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

REVIEW

on article

 

Integrated building maintenance and safety framework: educational and public facilities case study

 

Kun-Chi Wang, Reut Almassy, Hsi-Hsien Wei, Igal M. Shohet

 

SUMMARY

This research is relevant and is devoted to the problem of a comprehensive method for ensuring the safety of public facilities. The research emphasized that there is a synergy between the maintenance and safety of public facilities. The authors studied the relationship between maintenance efficiency and security risks in educational and public institutions.

In the study, the authors developed definitions of damage values and risk matrices to evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance and safety. Based on a survey in educational institutions, with participation in the safety inspection conducted by the authority, the degree of supervision and implementation of the authority's instructions, and independent field observations, the correlation between the level of maintenance and the level of safety was calculated. Also, the authors developed an integrated structure of indicators of safety and service of public and educational institutions, which was tested in a study of a public institution for 11 years. The results of this study emphasize that integrated security and maintenance should be implemented as a single procedure, and that this procedure will improve the efficiency of maintenance and the safety climate in the management of public facilities.

The article is of practical importance. The authors state that the study develops and provides a robust framework for an integrated risk-based safety and maintenance management system for educational and public facilities. The theory was tested in educational and public institutions.

The obtained practical results are useful and can be applied in practice in the conditions of real monitoring of public and educational facilities. The article is of particular interest.

However, some improvements are required. The main remarks are given below.

 

COMMENTS

1. The Abstract is given in a rather extended format. The content of lines 13-15 and 18-21 should have been shortened. At the same time, it is necessary to adhere to the rule that the recommended length of the Abstract is no more than 200 words.
2. The Abstract lacks an explicit statement of the purpose of the study. It is necessary to add or rephrase lines 16, 17.
3. Authors in the "Introduction" sections; Literature Review; "Case-Study—Public building integrated safety" and "Discussion and Conclusion" provide links to the work of other authors, which are presented in the text as an error: "Error! Reference source not found. It is necessary to edit this defect for a more convenient perception of the article by readers.
4. Section 2 "Literature review" looks like a continuation of section 1 "Introduction". It is advisable to combine section 1 with section 2 and complete the combined section "Introduction" with the formulation of the purpose, sub-goals and scientific novelty of the study.
5. Lines 275-280, containing the formulation of the research hypothesis, it would be logical to put at the end of the "Introduction" section.
6. Also, part of section 3 on lines 221-274 should be titled as subsection 3.1, and subsection 3.1. change to 3.2.
7. Tables 2 and 3 are first mentioned in Section 3, and the tables themselves are given by the authors in Section 3.1. It is necessary to move the tables closer to the first mention of them in section 3, or move the mention of tables 2 and 3 to subsection 3.1.
8. Section 3 ends with a few tables and figures. After Figure 3, this section should be summed up with some intermediate conclusions or analysis of these figures and tables. So, it is methodologically more correct.
9. Figures 5 and 6 should have provided more photographs of examples of typical safety hazards in a sports field and exterior cladding. This would demonstrate the greater breadth of the study. More detailed explanations for these figures are also needed.
10. Figures 4 and 7 do not have vertical axis labels. Also, there is no need to extend the vertical axis past 10.0 values. These figures need to be improved.
11. In line 372, apparently, the numbers of the figures to which the reference is given are incorrect. It must be checked and, if necessary, corrected.
12. It is necessary to streamline the structure in terms of the order in which tables and figures are given after their first mention in the text of the manuscript. For example, line 359 refers to Figure 8, then line 365 refers to Table 5. However, Table 5 is presented first (line 377), and after it is Figure 8 (line 378). Should be corrected.
13. At the end of section 4, after Figure 8, a smooth transition between sections 4 and 5 should be added in the form of an analysis of the results obtained and some conclusions from section 4. This would strengthen the structure and integrity of the study.
14. Section 5, after a series of figures and a table, should also be concluded with an analysis of the presented results. It may be necessary to restructure this section from its existing content. This would improve the reader's perception of the results and their analysis and would make a smoother transition from results to discussion and conclusions.
15. In line 415 in the figure caption, the name of the figure must begin with a capital letter. Needs to be corrected.
16. Line 467 should have avoided the reference to Table 4.
17. Recommendations on the structure of the article: Sections 4 and 5 could be combined into one section and called "Results". Section 6 Discussion and Conclusion could be divided into either 2 subsections 6.1. Discussion and 6.2. Conclusion, or divide them into two separate sections. In its present form, the structure of the manuscript does not appear to be orderly and complete.
18. The list of references must be edited and brought to a unified style in accordance with the rules for the design of the Journal.
19. There are typos in the text. It is necessary to proofread the text and conduct an English language test.

Author Response

Friday, May 20, 2022

Dear respected guest editor Professor Ana Silva and reviewers,

 

The authors thank all of you for being dedicated to the review process and for the constructive comments.

 Below the responses to the reviewers' comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Reviewer 3:

COMMENTS

1. The Abstract is given in a rather extended format. The content of lines 13-15 and 18-21 should have been shortened. At the same time, it is necessary to adhere to the rule that the recommended length of the Abstract is no more than 200 words.

 

• Abstract has been revised and shortened.

 

2. The Abstract lacks an explicit statement of the purpose of the study. It is necessary to add or rephrase lines 16, 17.

 

• The objective of the study is stated in lines 20-22, 91-103, and 273-275: the research aimed at the development of an integrated maintenance-safety framework to achieve this six sub-goals were stated.

 

3. Authors in the "Introduction" sections; Literature Review; "Case-Study—Public building integrated safety" and "Discussion and Conclusion" provide links to the work of other authors, which are presented in the text as an error: "Error! Reference source not found. It is necessary to edit this defect for a more convenient perception of the article by readers.

 

• References were checked and proofed.

 

4. Section 2 "Literature review" looks like a continuation of section 1 "Introduction". It is advisable to combine section 1 with section 2 and complete the combined section "Introduction" with the formulation of the purpose, sub-goals and scientific novelty of the study.

 

• Done as suggested. Section 1 concludes with purpose, sub-goals and novelty.

 

5. Lines 275-280, containing the formulation of the research hypothesis, it would be logical to put at the end of the "Introduction" section.

 

• Done.

 

6. Also, part of section 3 on lines 221-274 should be titled as subsection 3.1, and subsection 3.1. change to 3.2.

 

• Section 3.1 has been integrated into section 1, the research hypotheses as well.

 

7. Tables 2 and 3 are first mentioned in Section 3, and the tables themselves are given by the authors in Section 3.1. It is necessary to move the tables closer to the first mention of them in section 3, or move the mention of tables 2 and 3 to subsection 3.1.

 

• Done inherently from prior remarks.

 

8. Section 3 ends with a few tables and figures. After Figure 3, this section should be summed up with some intermediate conclusions or analysis of these figures and tables. So, it is methodologically more correct.

 

• Done – Please see Lines 351-3538 at the end of Section 2 research method.

 

9. Figures 5 and 6 should have provided more photographs of examples of typical safety hazards in a sports field and exterior cladding. This would demonstrate the greater breadth of the study. More detailed explanations for these figures are also needed.

• Photographs of examples of typical safety hazards in a sports field and exterior cladding added to Figures 5 and 6.

 

10. Figures 4 and 7 do not have vertical axis labels. Also, there is no need to extend the vertical axis past 10.0 values. These figures need to be improved.

 

• Done.

 

11. In line 372, apparently, the numbers of the figures to which the reference is given are incorrect. It must be checked and, if necessary, corrected.

 

• Done

 

12. It is necessary to streamline the structure in terms of the order in which tables and figures are given after their first mention in the text of the manuscript. For example, line 359 refers to Figure 8, then line 365 refers to Table 5. However, Table 5 is presented first (line 377), and after it is Figure 8 (line 378). Should be corrected.

 

• Corrected as suggested.

 

13. At the end of section 4, after Figure 8, a smooth transition between sections 4 and 5 should be added in the form of an analysis of the results obtained and some conclusions from section 4. This would strengthen the structure and integrity of the study.

 

• Done as suggested. Please see lines 353-458 Paragraph 3.3.

 

14. Section 5, after a series of figures and a table, should also be concluded with an analysis of the presented results. It may be necessary to restructure this section from its existing content. This would improve the reader's perception of the results and their analysis and would make a smoother transition from results to discussion and conclusions.

 

• Please see lines 499-503.

 

15. In line 415 in the figure caption, the name of the figure must begin with a capital letter. Needs to be corrected.

 

• Corrected, Thank you.

 

16. Line 467 should have avoided the reference to Table 4.

 

• Reference to Table 4 is avoided,

 

17. Recommendations on the structure of the article: Sections 4 and 5 could be combined into one section and called "Results". Section 6 Discussion and Conclusion could be divided into either 2 subsections 6.1. Discussion and 6.2. Conclusion, or divide them into two separate sections. In its present form, the structure of the manuscript does not appear to be orderly and complete.

 

• Thank you for your recommendation: Sections 4 and 5 are combined to "Results" and Section 6 divided into two separate sections.

 

18. The list of references must be edited and brought to a unified style in accordance with the rules for the design of the Journal.

 

• Done as suggested.

19. There are typos in the text. It is necessary to proofread the text and conduct an English language test.

 

• Text has been comprehensively proofread.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments accordingly. However, some spelling errors are still detected in the manuscript, e.g., mainteyance. Please do a final language checking prior to the final submission. 

Author Response

Many thanks for your review and suggestions, please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current framework I think is more confusing. You cannot describe the framework of the study you designed in such detail in the introduction section, it should be put after the literature review.

 

Is it appropriate that the first paragraph of the introduction section has only one sentence (line 47)?

 

I have reason to doubt that the author has made serious changes. There are many formatting errors in the main text, for example, line 134 mentions Figure 3, but it should be Figure 2. line 175 does not correspond to the order of the last influencing factor, it should be 1.2.2. There are also problems with the sequential numbering of the remaining chapters.

 

The current literature review of 1.2 should be a separate chapter. Moreover, the definition of 1.2.1 is unnecessary and can be put in one piece with the content of the literature review afterwards. In particular, the object of the literature review is problematic, and there is no need to introduce these concepts, which should be reviewed for the research object to be reasonable.

 

The results section has some graphs and figures, which should be explained in more detail.

 

The discussion section should be segmented to express the results to be discussed clearly.

Author Response

Many thanks for your review and suggestions, please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All my comments authors considered and made corrections in the article's text.

1. Nevertheless, the article contains errors, like, "Error! Reference source not found" (lines 115, 116, Table 1, 290, 479, 480).

2. Dear authors, please, check the quality of the drawings. According to the requirements of the journal, figures must have at least 1000 pixels on the short side and a resolution of 300 DPI.

Author Response

Many thanks for your review and suggestions, please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been sufficiently revised compared to the previous version that I have no further comments.