Critical Challenges and Potential for Widespread Adoption of Mass Timber Construction in Australia—An Analysis of Industry Perceptions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very nice paper. I really enjoyed it
Author Response
Very nice paper. I really enjoyed it
Authors’ response:
The authors want to thank you for finding the article enjoyable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors.
Congratulations, in my opinion the study is very interesting. I have only one comment about 2.1.2. Mass Timber Products and Building Systems.
You said that that Mass Timber Building (MTB) systems can mainly be categorised into two different types, light-weight timber framing and mass timber framing.
Later description of performance fulfillment can not be aplicable to light-weigth timber framing. If you include it, from my point of view, it is necesary to show differences in 2.1.3.
Author Response
Dear authors.
Congratulations, in my opinion the study is very interesting. I have only one comment about 2.1.2. Mass Timber Products and Building Systems.
Authors’ response:
The authors want to thank you for finding the article interesting.
Comment:
You said that that Mass Timber Building (MTB) systems can mainly be categorised into two different types, light-weight timber framing and mass timber framing.
Later description of performance fulfillment can not be aplicable to light-weigth timber framing. If you include it, from my point of view, it is necesary to show differences in 2.1.3.
Authors’ response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback, and we have incorporated your points in the revised article.
Reviewer 3 Report
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The manuscript dealt with an interesting subject that may lead to the achievement of SDGs. In fact, the first half of the introduction presented social backgrounds of mass timber construction well. However, from the latter half onwards, the manuscript demonstrated numerous critical issues as a research article. Following are my specific comments.
STRUCTURES
· There were double spaces between words.
· You need a space between a number and unit (e.g. 24 m).
· There were grammatical mistakes such as “this is because”.
· Please fix the above-mentioned errors.
CONTENT
· The introduction needs to outline relevant research fields so that readers can see how relatable the paper is.
· Section 2 needs to be significantly improved. The intention of this section was not very clear in this format.
· The research methodology did not seem scientifically sound. For this reason, the obtained results may have been influenced by subjectivity.
· In other words, the results need to be refined to remove the influence of the subjectivity.
· Research novelty was not clear as it was based only on the interview with a limited number of people.
· Conclusions were not well supported by the results.
· Conclusions are scientifically very shallow.
· We would like to see scientific assessment that proves your point (e.g. calculation, analysis etc..). For instance, can you perform life-cycle assessment that presents the environmental impact of MTC? Appendix 1 shows that you have a plenty of candidates for that.
Author Response
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The manuscript dealt with an interesting subject that may lead to the achievement of SDGs. In fact, the first half of the introduction presented social backgrounds of mass timber construction well. However, from the latter half onwards, the manuscript demonstrated numerous critical issues as a research article. Following are my specific comments.
Authors’ response:
The authors want to thank you for finding the article interesting. The authors’ have revised to improved the second half of the article as suggested.
STRUCTURES
- There were double spaces between words.
- You need a space between a number and unit (e.g. 24 m).
- There were grammatical mistakes such as “this is because”.
- Please fix the above-mentioned errors.
Authors’ response:
The discrepancies in the structure have been rectified in the revised article.
CONTENT
- The introduction needs to outline relevant research fields so that readers can see how relatable the paper is.
Authors’ response:
The relevant research field has been clarified in the revised article.
- Section 2 needs to be significantly improved. The intention of this section was not very clear in this format.
Authors’ response:
A diagram has been included to follow the structure and research steps. In addition, various sections have also been revised to bring clarity.
- The research methodology did not seem scientifically sound. For this reason, the obtained results may have been influenced by subjectivity.
- In other words, the results need to be refined to remove the influence of subjectivity.
- Research novelty was not clear as it was based only on interview with a limited number of people.
Authors’ response:
A detailed description of the methods applied to collect data and analyse data is provided in the revised manuscript, including the significance of the findings from the literature review, survey and interview with the rationale of using various methodological tools.
- Conclusions were not well supported by the results.
- Conclusions are scientifically very shallow.
- We would like to see scientific assessment that proves your point (e.g. calculation, analysis etc..). For instance, can you perform life-cycle assessment that presents the environmental impact of MTC? Appendix 1 shows that you have a plenty of candidates for that.
Authors’ response:
Thank you for your constructive criticism, and the authors have revised the conclusion section and revised it as per your suggestions. However, the authors acknowledge that although a life cycle assessment would have been an interesting study, that was not part of the scope of this study. Hopefully, in the future, the authors can consider the suggested studies.
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript entitled “Towards the widespread adoption of mass timber as a primary building material to foster the modern methods of construction” yields the results of an inquiry and a group of interviews on the knowledge of timber construction stakeholders in Australia on mass timber construction. The topic is currently important because Cross Laminated Timber and other products for mass timber construction is being promoted all over the world. However, as far as the authors indicate, this type of construction is (oddly) not very known by the Australian timber professionals. I think the manuscript cannot be published because the methodology is not clear, the formal presentation is poor, the contents are not properly ordered and, in addition, there are no academic profiles in the group of respondents. I mean with this last point that if the goal is “the widespread adoption of mass timber as a primary building material” how are you going to study that if you do not know the formation and training of the university lecturers and professors on this topic in architecture and engineering schools? I am sure the suitable training of the academic staff is the first step to improve the use of these new wood products in construction.
Authors’ response:
The author would like to thank you for your very comprehensive and constructive criticism of the article to improve the quality of the article. The authors have considered all of your points and tried to incorporate them in the revised version. For example, the title of the article has been revised. The authors didn’t claim that the Australian construction professionals do not know mass timber construction rather they have less exposure/experience since only a handful of projects have been completed in Australia. The revised article corrects and revises such language to reflect the correct notion of the industry in Australia.
The authors agree with the comments that no academic/instructions were part of the study and how important their roles were in promoting the widespread application. The importance and the roles of various actions are included in the revised version. In addition, the authors acknowledge it as a limitation (the lack of academic participation) and incorporate it in the future study recommendation.
Title: This is not a description of the study but a final goal. I feel the sentence in lines 22-23 would be better material for the title. Abstract: Line 29: Please be realistic. I think “improved” is better than “optimised”. Keywords: Instead of “glulam” please write Glued Laminated Timber (GLT). Please insert the complete name before LVL.
Authors’ response:
The corrections have been made in the revised article.
Introduction: Line 45: I think a definition of the MTC method is necessary. Why not moving the material in lines 72-78 to line 45? Line 67: the citation is wrong (three authors) Line 96: ¿US dollars or what? These huge quantities are more easily understandable in relative terms. For example, percentage of the Australian GDP. Sections 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2., 2.1.3 and part of 2.1.4 are material corresponding to the Introduction. Lines 169, 172, 177, 179, 180 and 182: cubic meters are not properly written.
Authors’ response:
The corrections have been made in the revised article.
Table 1: Some draw or figure would be useful to understand the categories of the table. Line 216: the abbreviation of hour/s is wrong. Results and Discussion: It is very scarce the number of participants (38) if compared with the number of required participants (860). This is usual in studies by means of questionnaires, but I feel it was necessary some discussion on that scarcity of responses. I would like to read the format of the questionnaire because perhaps it is too long or to complex, perhaps the way to send the questionnaire was not suitable (e-mail, telephone, classical mail?), perhaps the questions are all open answer type or all close answer type, perhaps… Lines 310, 320, 331: It is not necessary to repeat the number of participants.
Authors’ response:
The corrections have been made in the revised article.
It is enough naming them always “respondents” or always “participants” throughout the text. Table 2. The word “percentage” in the heading would make unnecessary to put “%” close to each value. This table is cut in two pages. I think it is necessary to insert some horizontal lines to better understand the groups of values. Where is the academic role in here?
Authors’ response:
The corrections have been made in the revised article.
Line 351: please define the acronym. Figures 1 and 2: If “%” would be in the name of the left axis it is not necessary to repeat “%” in each value. How is it computed the numerical value in the right axis? I am not sure, but it is possible the grey frame around the figure is not necessary. Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7: I am not sure, but it is possible the grey frame around the figure is not necessary.
Authors’ response:
The corrections have been made in the revised article.
Tables 3 and 5. The number of decimals should be the same in each column. Figure 8. How do you interpret the figure? Table 8. I think it is necessary to insert some horizontal lines to better understand the groups of values. Figure 9: the text is not very legible. Conclusions: Lines 653-658: all this material correspond to the Introduction.
Authors’ response:
The corrections have been made in the revised article.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments have been addressed. I suggest that the manuscript goes through thorough proofreading and formatting.
Reviewer 4 Report
An important amount (39 %) of the corrections and comments I made in my first revision have not been included in the new version. The lack of corrections affects to significant topics of the document (both formal and contents topics). Because of that, my opinion on the manuscript is unfortunately the same as for the original version.
