Analysis and Prediction of Universities’ Buildings’ Renovation Costs Using a Regression Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Analysis and prediction of universities buildings renovation works costs using regression model” proposes a model that predicts future renovation work costs expenditures in educational buildings based on regression analysis. The paper presents an interesting theme. However, there are some topics that I believe could be improved.
MAJOR COMMENTS:
1) ABSTRACT: The Abstract must be a faithful summary of the paper. In this case, the objective and methodology were well-defined. However, there was a lack of contextualization of the theme, which would help to establish the relevance of the study for the field of knowledge. Moreover, the main conclusions were not properly included.
2) INTRODUCTION: I suggest that the Introduction be improved. This section should provide a brief introduction to the topic, delimit the research gap, the objective, highlight the novelty of the research, and provide a brief explanation of the methodology to be used. In my opinion, although the text was relatively short, all items were satisfactorily addressed, except the emphasis on the novelty that the study brings.
3) LITERATURE REVIEW: This section needs improvement. The aim of the literature review is to indicate the state of the art on the subject. In other words, indicate which results the most recent studies have produced on the subject. As well as substantiating the most important concepts for understanding the research. In this sense, the conclusions obtained in these recent studies should be properly deepened, and not just briefly indicate their scope. A review of the literature on the use of regression analysis to predict renovation costs should also be presented, as this is the technique that will be used in this work. As a result, references should be expanded.
4) MATERIALS AND METHODS / RESULTS: I believe there was an error in separating the sections. The Materials and Methods section should provide all necessary information so that the study can be replicated. That is, indicate the step-by-step that was carried out for the study. In this case, creating the linear regression model. However, this information is erroneously placed in the first paragraphs of the Results section. I suggest properly reorganizing the information so that the methodology is placed in Section 2 and only the results are placed in Section 3.
5) RESULTS: The implications of the developed model should be better discussed, either in the Results section or in the Discussion section. Why did some buildings show a greater deviation between actual and predicted values? Could the model be applied to other buildings? Or would it be necessary to collect new historical data about this new set of buildings? How much data is ideal for generating an assertive model for a building?
MINOR COMMENTS:
6) KEYWORDS: I suggest that the keywords be better chosen or, at least, expanded, in order to improve the return of the searches in the indexed databases if the paper is approved for publication.
7) LINE 111: All abbreviations must be cited in full the first time they appear in the text.
8) I suggest that the graphics be better worked, mainly to establish a design standard for the paper. Figures 5 and 6, for example, present similar information, but with a very different design, which gives the paper an unprofessional appearance. Furthermore, better graphic work is needed in Figures 4 and 7, in order to make their interpretation simpler and more pleasant.
9) All figures must be properly indicated throughout the text, close to the place where they are positioned.
10) LINES 228 and 231: Texts should only be formatted this way if they are equations. And if they are equations, they should be duly numbered as such.
11) TABLE 4: I didn't understand the text above the table. I suggest better formatting the table.
12) FIGURE 5: The units of each graph axis must be identified.
Author Response
The authors want to thank the Reviewer for the positive feedback and for all comments that helped to enrich and improve the paper. The reviewer’s remarks and requests have been considered carefully by the authors. All the requested revisions have been addressed. All the improvements and changes in the manuscript are marked with red colour.
Comment 1:
MAJOR COMMENTS:
1) ABSTRACT: The Abstract must be a faithful summary of the paper. In this case, the objective and methodology were well-defined. However, there was a lack of contextualization of the theme, which would help to establish the relevance of the study for the field of knowledge. Moreover, the main conclusions were not properly included.
Response: The abstract has been reorganized and enriched.
Comment 2:
2) INTRODUCTION: I suggest that the Introduction be improved. This section should provide a brief introduction to the topic, delimit the research gap, the objective, highlight the novelty of the research, and provide a brief explanation of the methodology to be used. In my opinion, although the text was relatively short, all items were satisfactorily addressed, except the emphasis on the novelty that the study brings.
Response: Introduction has been broadened according the novelties in proposed model.
Comment 3:
3) LITERATURE REVIEW: This section needs improvement. The aim of the literature review is to indicate the state of the art on the subject. In other words, indicate which results the most recent studies have produced on the subject. As well as substantiating the most important concepts for understanding the research. In this sense, the conclusions obtained in these recent studies should be properly deepened, and not just briefly indicate their scope. A review of the literature on the use of regression analysis to predict renovation costs should also be presented, as this is the technique that will be used in this work. As a result, references should be expanded.
Response: The literature review has been enriched and broadened.
Comment 4:
4) MATERIALS AND METHODS / RESULTS: I believe there was an error in separating the sections. The Materials and Methods section should provide all necessary information so that the study can be replicated. That is, indicate the step-by-step that was carried out for the study. In this case, creating the linear regression model. However, this information is erroneously placed in the first paragraphs of the Results section. I suggest properly reorganizing the information so that the methodology is placed in Section 2 and only the results are placed in Section 3.
Response: The study has been reorganized. Some materials and methods have been moved from section results and discussion to section materials and methods (now lines 190-220).
Comment 5:
5) RESULTS: The implications of the developed model should be better discussed, either in the Results section or in the Discussion section. Why did some buildings show a greater deviation between actual and predicted values? Could the model be applied to other buildings? Or would it be necessary to collect new historical data about this new set of buildings? How much data is ideal for generating an assertive model for a building?
Response: The discussion was added.
Comment 6:
MINOR COMMENTS:
6) KEYWORDS: I suggest that the keywords be better chosen or, at least, expanded, in order to improve the return of the searches in the indexed databases if the paper is approved for publication.
Response: The keywords has been expanded.
Comment 7:
7) LINE 111: All abbreviations must be cited in full the first time they appear in the text.
Response: The full name has been added (Polish Złoty – PLN).
Comment 8:
8) I suggest that the graphics be better worked, mainly to establish a design standard for the paper. Figures 5 and 6, for example, present similar information, but with a very different design, which gives the paper an unprofessional appearance. Furthermore, better graphic work is needed in Figures 4 and 7, in order to make their interpretation simpler and more pleasant.
Response: Figure 5 is different than figure 5 because it was generated by Statistica software and it is impossible to change it. Other figures have been worked out to look similar to each other. According to figure 7, it is bigger now to be better seen and moreover additional text in the figure 7 interpretation has been added.
Comment 9:
9) All figures must be properly indicated throughout the text, close to the place where they are positioned.
Response: The figures are indicated thought the text, close to their position place. They are placed as close as the figure size allows to.
Comment 10:
10) LINES 228 and 231: Texts should only be formatted this way if they are equations. And if they are equations, they should be duly numbered as such.
Response: It has been changed.
Comment 11:
11) TABLE 4: I didn't understand the text above the table. I suggest better formatting the table.
Response: Table 4 has been reorganized.
Comment 12:
12) FIGURE 5: The units of each graph axis must be identified.
Response: The graph was generated in Statistica software, the authors are not able to change it or to redesign it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the comments. Please the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
---
Reviewer 2 Report
The aurhors implemented the reviewer's suggestions.
