A Conceptual Model for Selecting Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) for a Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is interesting research with very useful outcomes.
Please consider the following comments to improve your manuscript:
Remove "ECI" and "Conceptual Model" from keywords
Add participant number to Table 1
In line 198, it is better to change the term "conceptual model" to "themes" or "emerging themes"
Unbold "Budget" in Table 2
Since the study developed the ECI model based on client view only, it is better to reflect the client on the title and caption of Figure 2
Author Response
Please find it in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Research on Contractor Involvement 2 (ECI) for a project is a potential topic to explore. The actual need to address this issue reflects the requirements of practice. Therefore, it is crucial to carry out this research correctly and emphasise the quantification of results from this point of view. The research in question has great potential for meeting the data requirements of practice, which are necessary for practice. Unfortunately, given the importance of the topic and the well-placed research problem, the potential of this research has not been realized. Previous findings lack quantification of results. Based on a thorough study of this research, I state that the research has potential and these results are desirable for practice, but they cannot be published in this form. Since the research is needed and the research problem is well built, I recommend reworking this manuscript and improving it. However, once revised, this post has the potential to be published.
Suggested comments:
1. Abstract - The abstract should contain a more detailed methodology and tools for evaluating the results. I also recommend briefly describing the characteristics of the research sample in this section.
2. Methodology - A significant part for a more detailed description of the issue. I recommend describing the choice of methods and the research steps that were carried out in the research.
3. Results of the work - The research primarily presents the results of qualitative research. However, these results are difficult to interpret and understand in practice for managerial decision-making. The manuscript mentions several methods for multicriteria decision-making, but none of these methods has been used to interpret the results. This does not follow the above-described results. Therefore, I recommend using one of these tools and quantifying the results. These results will be much more necessary for practice.
Author Response
Please find it in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made improvements to the manuscript and partially incorporated the comments. However, the manuscript still needs more improvements on a larger scale. I understand that research uses qualitative methods, but there is still a need to describe the steps more clearly and in more detail. After the improvement, the manuscript has the potential to be published in the journal, but the mentioned comments must be incorporated.
Author Response
An entire section (section 4. Analytical procedure) has been added to this revised manuscript, explaining the entire analytical procedure of this study step by step in details (see lines 188 – 221)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
