Developing a Waterproofing Decision-Making Model for High-Rise Building Projects in the Tropics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors are commended for the effort invested in the preparation of the manuscript. The manuscript contains a description of various problems that decision-makers face in practice. At first glance, it seems that it could be interesting to a wider range of readers. During a more detailed analysis of the manuscript, I noticed the following elements that, in my opinion, could be improved.

1. Please think about correcting the title. Perhaps the „: Best Worst Method“ part can be omitted, the rest is descriptive enough, and the abstract mentions the applied method anyway. In my opinion, it is more important to develop a model and identify certain decision-making factors, and then various methods can be applied, for example the BWM.

2. Please check how the names and surnames of the authors’ are presented (line 4, p.1). The surname of the last author is written in capital letters, and the others only with the initial capital letter. Please write the names according to the instructions for the authors.

3. The title says "high rise" and in the abstract there is "high-rise". Please use the same way of presentation throughout the manuscript.

4. The sentence in lines 21-23 is not clear. It starts with (a), without any specific connection with the previous text. Reformulate it and connect it with the rest of the text. Do the same with the next sentence (lines 22-23), which starts with "Moreover". Use standard words, understandable and commonly applied, such as "used" instead of "approached" (line 20). State what the main goal and results of the research are, which will gain the originality of the text more than using non-standard synonyms of frequently used words or phrases. This study confirms or "could prove" (lines 25-27), or it simply „describes“ or „presents“ some results?

5. In the Introduction section, please check the correctness of the phrases and expressions used. In the sentence on p.1, lines 32-35, "the movement of radioactive substances" is mentioned. Check if this was the authors’ intention. Personally, I would leave "radioactive" out of this sentence.

6. Since the first pages of the manuscript repeatedly mention that it is about the tropics, it might be interesting for readers what makes the tropics specific in the context of the content of the manuscript and the model shown. Can this presented model be applied to waterproofing considerations in other regions or is it specific to tropics? Do the building projects carried out in these regions have certain characteristics that make them more or less susceptible to the occurrence of the described problems? For example, Tab. 1 (pp. 2-3) contains information about buildings in certain locations, perhaps it would be interesting for readers to know what characteristics those locations have from the point of view of precipitation (number of rainy days, amount of precipitation, etc.). It is very important to point out whether the problems occurred during construction or after a certain period of use of the mentioned buildings.

7. In section 2.1.2, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show percentages, but the total number of respondents is not stated. It is not clear whether the respondents from Tab. 2 included in the data shown in the previously mentioned figures.

8. On p.4, line 145, the abbreviation BMW is stated. When it is mentioned in the text for the first time, it is preferable also to mention the full name.

9. On p.5, lines 153-162, the steps are listed, without any prior explanation of what they represent.

10. On p.5, lines 168-172, there is an explanation for the data from the table. Instead of 464%, it is better to put the total number of surveys and the total number of responses on the basis of which the percentages were determined.

11. On p. 7, lines 203-213 show the results of the analysis. Is there an explanation for these results? Section 3.3 mostly explains the effects, not the causes. Tab. 4, pp.8-13 gives an explanation of certain causes. For each identified problem, it is necessary to state the causes or potential causes, consequences and measures. However, later in the text the causes are explained as a result of the survey (p.13).

12. On p.13, line 244, correct the title of the section.

13. On p.13, there is section 3.4. and then 3.2. Please correct the numbering.

14. In the title of the manuscript is "...waterproofing decision-making model for high rise building projects in the tropics...". If the essence of the manuscript is "waterproofing decision-making model", it is necessary to describe the model in more detail with all elements for decision-making and the procedure applied during decision-making. Section 3.2. it should certainly be a part of it, as well as section 4.8, but it would be important for readers to know how the displayed factors and sub-factors are arrived at, i.e. how the weights are determined, which elements were used to determine the weights (do these weights change in some other regions, which are not characterized by tropical climatic conditions). Certain elements of the description are listed in the discussion. Everything related to the method and its application should be grouped in one place, and what is the result of research and analysis of the results should remain in the Results and Discussion sections.
15. Section 4.9 should describe the essence of the manuscript, and the first sentence states „decision-making in waterproofing selection“. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a selection based on what is shown, because there are no alternatives to be selected, different waterproofing procedures are not described, from which the user chooses the one that is most suitable based on the shown method and the specified factors and sub-factors, which is also the biggest drawback of the manuscript which needs to be corrected. In the manuscript, it is necessary to state, explain or put into a separate section what is described on p.20, lines 460-476, i.e. how the presented method can be applied to what is described on p.20, lines 477-483, and what is stated in the Conclusions.

Based on the above, the manuscript in present form is not suitable for publication.

1. Some sentences seem too complicated, artificial, as if they were made to be „more scientific“ than necessary. In some places it seems as if certain elements are missing, such as „as“ in the sentence on p.1, lines 43-45. Some sentences, like one on the p.2, lines 47-49, have a complex structure that is difficult to understand, and it is possible to write much simpler. Maybe somewhere it is correct to use „cost“, and in some other places „costs“. I suggest to the authors to make an extra effort to make the text more comprehensible to a wide range of readers.

Author Response

We want to express our appreciation for the reviewer's comments. We believe the paper has been improved because of the comments. 
We have provided our responses to each of the comments in the attached file and all the changes are incorporated in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 

The topic of the manuscript looks interesting. The layout and presentation of the manuscript need some significant improvements. Moreover, I recommend the following corrections to improve the manuscript:

1- The authors should have used a grammar check editor for some grammatical errors and misprints.

2- In Introduction Section, the contributions of the manuscript should be detailed clearly.

3- End of the Introduction Section, the paragraph related to the organizing of the paper should be added.

3- They should mention the following state-of-the-arts articles related to decision-making and waterproof constructions:

2018, Design and Development of Weatherproof Seals for Prefabricated Construction: A Methodological Approach, Buildings 2018, 8(9), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8090117

2021, Operability-Oriented Configurations of the Soft Decision-Making Methods Proposed between 2013 and 2016 and Their Comparisons, Journal of New Theory 2021(34), 84–114; https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jnt/issue/61070/896315

2021, SDM Methods' Configurations (2017-2019) and Their Application to a Performance-Based Value Assignment Problem: A Follow Up Study, Annals of Optimization Theory and Practice 4(1), 41–85; https://doi.org/10.22121/AOTP.2021.287404.1069

4- Questionnaire Survey I and II should be detailed and uploaded as supplementary files.

5- Besides Best Worst Method, whose steps seem so simple in the manuscript, there are many state-of-the-art multi-criteria decision-making methods. For example, the soft decision-making methods provided in Comment 3 are suitable for many real-life problems. Even if the aforesaid soft decision-making methods were not used in this study, they should be mentioned.

6- The algorithm steps of BWM are poorly written. They are not clear. The algorithm steps should be written properly. Please examine the algorithm's steps provided in Comment 3.

7- In Subsection 3.2, the use of BWM should be detailed. They are not reader-friendly. An illustrative example of BWM will be reader-friendly.

8- In Conclusion Section, the advantages, disadvantages, limitations of the study, and future works should be provided and detailed clearly.

 

 

Best regards.

The authors should have used a grammar check editor for some grammatical errors and misprints.

Author Response

We want to express our appreciation for the reviewer's comments. We believe the paper has been improved because of the comments. 
We have provided our responses to each of the comments in the attached file and all the changes are incorporated in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study examined the factors that affect the selection of the best waterproofing system in high-rise building projects in the tropics. Preliminary observations were conducted to investigate typically occurring issues with high-rise buildings which contain commercial, office, and residential facilities. Questionnaire surveys and semi structured interviews with the respective professionals involved in the waterproofing industry were approached for data collection. The topic is very interesting, however, there are needed to address some issues before consideration for publication.

·       In the list of authors, authors need to carefully put their institutions, city, country, and email. For instance author No1.

·       I suggest authors clearly summarize what specific advantages brings your approach. Enrich your Introduction section with more explanation on following issues: Why is to propose BWM method for determining criteria weights? Why not other subjective methods like FUCOM, LBWA or DIBR? These methods should be discussed and compared in a part of advantages and limitations.

·       The novelty of study need to be highlight on the introduction.

·       Literature review should be presented in a better way. Remove some old references published before 2018. You should discuss application of various extensions of BWM method in MCDM filed. You should update your literature review with a papers published in last two-three years, and remove old references.]

·       Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are the research questions? What are your contributions?

·       It is advisable for authors to do a sensitivity analysis or a comparative analysis to validate their proposed methodology.

·       Authors should provide the limitations of their study as well as those of BWM approach in the conclusion.

·       Authors should also provide future studies for the topic under consideration.

Minor English editing is required

Author Response

We want to express our appreciation for the reviewer's comments. We believe the paper has been improved because of the comments. 
We have provided our responses to each of the comments in the attached file and all the changes are incorporated in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors put considerable effort into revising the manuscript. The suggestions from the previous review have been accepted. I have no additional concerning the structure and content of the manuscript.

I prefer research instead of investigation (line 168).

In papers, I usually avoid statements like "...and ensured that the results were accurate and reliable" (line 176).

Perhaps more appropriate is "1.8% of cases" or simply "1.8%" compared to "1.8% of the frequency" (line 331). 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In the revised manuscript, all the suggestions have been adopted, and the major corrections have been made. Therefore, my evaluation is that the revised version of this manuscript can be published in this journal.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed all the comments and I am satisfy with their response. The manuscript has been significantly improve. I thus recommend to be accepted for publication in your prestigous journal.

English language has been considerably edited