Performance-Influencing Factors and Causal Relationships of Construction Projects Using Smart Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The concept is interesting and worth investigating. However, a few suggestions are as follows:

The introduction is poorly written and not well structured, it is recommended to describe the structure of the study in the introduction. 

The research structure or methods are not truly clear. The overall research methodology should be explained after the introduction. The use of a flow chart is recommended to explain the research steps carried out.

The text of Figures 1 and 2 is small and difficult to read, please increase the font size.

 

The data questionnaires are based on Korea. How would you justify the demographic limitation of the analysis?

 

English is exceedingly difficult to understand. It is recommended to avoid long sentences. Moreover, the use of abbreviations for factors and perspectives can improve the readability of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This topic is very forward-looking and innovative, and smart buildings are the latest development direction. The authors attempt to evaluate the application performance of smart technologies and reveal their influencing factors, which has important theoretical significance and practical value. It is worth noting that the writing and organization of this paper are relatively poor. It requires major modifications.

Below are some detailed suggestions that the author must provide good solutions for them.

Firstly, the format of buildings should be respected by the authors. The format of the abstract, first level title of the paper, and table needs to be modified according to the template.

Use the Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template to prepare your manuscript;

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings/instructions

Secondly, "2. Preliminary Review" should be changed to "2 Literature Review”.

Thirdly, the literature review on lines 70-103 needs to be rewritten. Authors should not pile up their papers as they appear cluttered and unreadable. I suggest the author categorize and describe the literature, such as: which smart technologies have been applied? What are their application methods? What research methods have been used in the current paper and what key conclusions have been obtained?

Fourth, I believe that the article should be supplemented with a clearly defined research objective, questions and hypotheses. The lack of this information makes it difficult to refer to the results of the study. The research gap was not clearly defined. They should appear between lines 103 and 104.

Fifth, between lines 103 and 104, the author needs to provide clear research steps, research methods, and describe the sources of relevant data and their acquisition channels.

Sixth, "3. Performance Influencing Factors" and "4 Analysis of Performance Characteristics and Causal Relationship "should be merged as the research result. It is worth noting that the author must provide the data sources for Tables 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Seventh, lines 216 to 218 mention the top 100 and bottom 100 companies. The author needs to indicate which country, province, or city the company is located in? What is the ranking based on?

Eighth, there should be an independent discussion section in the paper between lines 303-304. The author needs to compare the analysis results of this article with the research conclusions of other scholars. Authors need to identify similarities and differences between the two and explain the reasons. External evidence is a necessary component of scientific papers, and authors should not overlook it.

Ninth, the author needs to provide descriptions of "Author Contributions" and "Data Availability Statement".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments.

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for their comments and suggestions for improving the paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provide a better solution.

I suggest “4. Data Collection” and “2. Methods” should be integrated.

Author Response

All editorial comments and technical clarifications requested by Reviewer 2 have been incorporated as appropriate, including the following:

The authors provide a better solution.

I suggest “4. Data Collection” and “2. Methods” should be integrated.

 

• As the reviewer's comments, the authors have revised “2. Methods” to incorporate with “4. Data Collection”. Please refer to the revised manuscript.