Evaluating Building Construction Safety Performance in Different Regions in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Thank you very much for taking the time to address all the issues I raised. I think the paper is ready for publication now.
The quality of English is good. Notwithstanding, attention could be paid to some minor spell-checks
Author Response
Thank you very much for your affirmation！
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Please check my previous comments and provide a rebuttal letter accordingly.
Additionally, the revised paper is not correctly formatted, such as in mathematical formulas and figures; there are errors and very low quality. What is the problem if you make all the graph axes the same fonts and font size?
The following change should be addressed in the manuscript
1. The article's name (The first letter should be capitalized, or each sentence word should be capitalized ).
2. Line 12 adds the abbreviation. Line 49, you should change the thesis to another term; remember, it's an article, not a thesis.
3. I think you can merge the literature review section with the introduction. Moreover, making it shorter, five pages are too much. Line 221 "Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the paper." Does it not make sense? Please fix it. The Chinese construction industry (cite their reference or manual).
4. The mathematical formulas are consistent with the journal's requirement; it's better to use Ms Word equation generators and number them properly.
5. Imprve the quality of figures 4,5 and 7 and keep them consistent with others( such as ues large font size colourful).
Here are some questions to be addressed:
1. What are the key factors influencing the sustainable development of construction safety in the construction industry according to the three-stage SBM-DEA model employed in the study?
2. How does the regional distribution of construction safety management levels within the construction industry in China change after considering the impact of economic development, supervision environment, and random errors, as revealed by the three-stage SBM-DEA model?
Please check my previous comments and provide a rebuttal letter accordingly.
Additionally, the revised paper is not correctly formatted, such as in mathematical formulas and figures; there are errors and very low quality. What is the problem if you make all the graph axes the same fonts and font size?
The following change should be addressed in the manuscript
1. The article's name (The first letter should be capitalized, or each sentence word should be capitalized ).
2. Line 12 adds the abbreviation. Line 49, you should change the thesis to another term; remember, it's an article, not a thesis.
3. I think you can merge the literature review section with the introduction. Moreover, making it shorter, five pages are too much. Line 221 "Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the paper." Does it not make sense? Please fix it. The Chinese construction industry (cite their reference or manual).
4. The mathematical formulas are consistent with the journal's requirement; it's better to use Ms Word equation generators and number them properly.
5. Imprve the quality of figures 4,5 and 7 and keep them consistent with others( such as ues large font size colourful).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors,
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the Construction Safety Performance (CSP) in various regions across China, employing the three-stage slack-based data envelopment analysis (SBM-DEA) model. The objective is to enhance the sustainability of safety practices within the construction industry, a topic of great relevance given the sector's notorious reputation for workplace accidents.
The authors aptly build upon existing research, identifying gaps and innovatively expanding on previous methodologies. Traditional DEA models and two-stage DEA models, they note, do not sufficiently account for external environmental factors (EEF) and random errors, which can impact the accuracy and validity of results. As such, they introduce a three-stage SBM-DEA model that can effectively account for these factors and provide a more nuanced understanding of construction safety performance across different regions.
The paper is strong in its explanation and justification for the research methods. The use of the SBM-DEA model enhances the objectivity of the study and allows for a comprehensive evaluation, going beyond simple accident rates and casualty data.
One of the article's key strengths is its recognition of the need for a balanced, sustainable approach to safety management in the construction industry that considers environmental protection, resource efficiency, social responsibility, and economic viability.
The analysis and conclusions drawn are insightful, suggesting that the supervision environment significantly influences construction safety sustainability. Furthermore, the paper identifies a shift in the regional distribution of construction safety management levels.
Despite these strengths, the paper might benefit from some improvements. First, the results section could be enhanced with more detailed explanations of the data and their implications. While the authors point out patterns and trends, they could dig deeper into the 'why' behind these findings.
Second, the study focuses solely on China, potentially limiting the generalizability of its conclusions. Although this focus enables a detailed, context-specific analysis, including comparative studies with other countries might offer broader insights into the global construction industry's safety performance.
Lastly, the paper could benefit from a more explicit and comprehensive discussion of the practical implications and policy recommendations. While the authors suggest strategies like government policy-led approaches, technology prioritization, and management prioritization, a more in-depth exploration would strengthen the article's impact and usefulness.
Overall, this paper represents an important contribution to research on construction safety performance, providing valuable insights for policy makers, industry stakeholders, and researchers. Its innovative use of the SBM-DEA model provides a robust analysis that can serve as a basis for future research and policy developments.
Extensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper is very nicely written. I found the methods, analysis, and results sound and scientific.
There are a number of typos and formatting issues throughout the paper that need to be addressed.
Thank you
Minor improvement of the language is needed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are commended for their effort in coming up with this paper. Unfortunately, there are serious issues that must be resolved. Please see below my comments.
1. The topic is too long. It must be restructured. For instance, will it be ok if is reframed as “Evaluating Building Construction Safety Performance in Different Regions in China”? The second part of it will naturally come out through the problem development and subsequently the results.
2. Page 2, line 49, this is an original research paper and not a thesis. Please correct this.
3. The introduction is more focused on justifying the methodology used than the actual problem. It will be good to rework the introduction. The introduction section must be made up of the following:
a. A brief background of the theme under investigation. Here, readers must be introduced to safety and its performance in the construction industry. It will be good to give some global statistics on the state of safety performance in the global construction industry before narrowing it down to China. It will also be good to try and link sustainable development to construction safety performance. The two lie sideways in the introduction.
b. A problem statement. Here, it will be good to state and discuss the reason why this study seeks to evaluate building construction safety performance in different regions in China. Emphasis must also be laid on why the paper seeks to analyse the regional differences.
c. Following the problem statement, the aim and specific objectives must be stated.
d. The final section of the introduction must provide readers with what to expect under the various sections of the paper.
4. The introduction reads like a thesis synopsis.
5. The current literature review reads like a problem statement. In there, the paper still seems to be making a case for the use of a particular methodology for this study. The section fails to provide a strong theoretical underpinning of the study. This is worrying.
6. Nothing is presented regarding construction health and safety, construction health and safety performance, the role of sustainable development in construction health and safety, etc. In fact, the paper is silent on the sustainable development aspect of the topic. Again, this is worrying.
7. The methodology may be rigourous. However, it lacks clarity. It seems not to follow any pattern. This is not how the methodology of an original research paper must be presented. I think there is a need to take readers through the various procedures used to achieve the research aim.
8. In lines 303-305, what does the word “Core” used in the context of the paper mean? If this refers to the aim, then I think the sentence must be checked again because the paper seemed not to look at that.
9. Section 4.1 seems to be describing procedures and not results. No results have been presented under this section.
10. The entire results section must be checked. The section seems not to be directed at any particular aim and specific objectives.
11. From the results presented, I would strongly suggest to the authors to take a relook at the topic. It does not match what has been presented.
12. The implications (both theory and practice) of the findings are not discussed.
13. There are no clear limitations identified. There are no recommendations for further studies as well.
14. This paper reads like a thesis. I would implore that the paper be restructured in the context of a research paper.
There are many grammatical issues that must be corrected. Quite difficult to read meaning into most of the sentences.
Reviewer 3 Report
Article: buildings-2449029
The following change should be addressed in the manuscript
1. The article's name (The first letter should be capitalized, or each sentence word should be capitalized ).
2. Line 12 adds the abbreviation. Line 49, you should change the thesis to another term; remember, it's an article, not a thesis.
3. I think you can merge the literature review section with the introduction. Moreover, making it shorter, five pages are too much. Line 221 "Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the paper." Does it not make sense? Please fix it. The Chinese construction industry (cite their reference or manual).
4. The mathematical formulas are consistent with the journal's requirement; it's better to use Ms Word equation generators and number them properly.
5. Imprve the quality of figures 4,5 and 7 and keep them consistent with others( such as ues large font size colourful).
Here are some questions to be addressed:
1. What are the key factors influencing the sustainable development of construction safety in the construction industry according to the three-stage SBM-DEA model employed in the study?
2. How does the regional distribution of construction safety management levels within the construction industry in China change after considering the impact of economic development, supervision environment, and random errors, as revealed by the three-stage SBM-DEA model?
Article: buildings-2449029
The following change should be addressed in the manuscript
1. The article's name (The first letter should be capitalized, or each sentence word should be capitalized ).
2. Line 12 adds the abbreviation. Line 49, you should change the thesis to another term; remember, it's an article, not a thesis.
3. I think you can merge the literature review section with the introduction. Moreover, making it shorter, five pages are too much. Line 221 "Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the paper." Does it not make sense? Please fix it. The Chinese construction industry (cite their reference or manual).
4. The mathematical formulas are consistent with the journal's requirement; it's better to use Ms Word equation generators and number them properly.
5. Imprve the quality of figures 4,5 and 7 and keep them consistent with others( such as ues large font size colourful).
Here are some questions to be addressed:
1. What are the key factors influencing the sustainable development of construction safety in the construction industry according to the three-stage SBM-DEA model employed in the study?
2. How does the regional distribution of construction safety management levels within the construction industry in China change after considering the impact of economic development, supervision environment, and random errors, as revealed by the three-stage SBM-DEA model?
