Bridge Construction Quality Evaluation Based on Combination Weighting Method- Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhile the paper touches upon important aspects of bridge construction quality evaluation, there are several shortcomings and areas for improvement that need to be addressed.
- INtroduction: The paper lacks a clear and concise statement of its research objectives and research questions. Readers should be able to understand the specific problem the paper aims to address and the research questions it seeks to answer. The novelty and originality of the study should be better highlighted from the academic perspective. Differences of this paper from previous works should be more clearly presented. Highlit added value of this paper to the scientific community. PRovide all of this at the end of the Introdusction.
- Introduction: Please provide insights on engineering materials as well, discussed in the literature. The following refference is highly suggested “Civil engineering materials”, Heritage and Sustainable Development, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 154–172, Oct. 2021.
- The paper claims to be based on a review of a "large amount of literature," but it does not provide a comprehensive review of existing research and methodologies related to bridge construction quality evaluation. A more thorough literature review is needed to justify the choice of the CWM-TOPSIS theory and to provide context for the study.
- The paper lacks clarity in its structure and organization. It does not follow a logical flow of information, making it difficult for readers to follow the argument and understand the methodology used. A clear and well-structured introduction, methodology section, results presentation, and conclusion are essential for effective communication.
- Methodological Issues:
a. Weight Assignment: The paper mentions using the CRITIC and IAHP methods for weight assignment, but it lacks a detailed explanation of these methods. The paper should provide a step-by-step description of how these methods were applied.
b. Lack of Data: The paper refers to "actual engineering calculation" but does not provide sufficient information about the data sources, data collection methods, or sample size used in the study.
c. Validation: The paper claims that the CWM-TOPSIS theory provides more accurate results compared to the standard element theory but does not provide empirical evidence or statistical analysis to support this claim. A thorough validation process is necessary.
- Results and Discussion: The presentation of results and their - implications is not clear. The paper should provide a more detailed discussion of the significance of the evaluation results and how they can be practically applied in bridge construction management. Compare your result with similarly published in the literature and discuss coherent and incoherent points. Present this in the form of the table.
Additionally, the paper should discuss the limitations of the proposed methodology.
- English :The paper contains some grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures. Proofreading and language editing are necessary to improve readability and comprehension.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for sharing the results of your work with us. The presented work is unique when it comes to quality control of bridge constructions. The presented work indicates the possibilities of applying combinations of several methods and theories. In order to improve the quality of work, let me point out certain segments:
1. It is necessary to explain more fully how you checked the selected 19 factors?
2. In lines 139-141: The same sentence is repeated!
3. The work would be greatly improved by checking the stability and applicability of the point value of the evaluation index based on the construction process in the specification "Technical Condition Assessment Standard for Highway Bridges".
4. Based on the presented work, the reader remains surprised by the conclusion of the poor. I propose to supplement the conclusion and present clearer tasks for further research.
5. Tasks for subsequent research could be more precise.
The contribution of the work is expressed in the following:
- Coverage of research in order to review and define the results of previous research.
- A model is presented that enables a more complete understanding of the quality of bridge construction. By combining multiple methods and theories.
- On the basis of the presented coverage of the literature, it can be concluded that a critical approach to the existing models was carried out.
- Clearly presented work results.
The paper has potential and can be accepted after the following MINOR corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic covered by the authors is interesting and worth publishing, but before the article can be published, several comments must be taken into account:
1. In chapter 2.1 there is information that 19 factors affecting the quality of the bridge structure were analyzed. What are the factors (are they the factors described in table No. 1), if there is no reference to table No. 1 in the appropriate place. There is also no information on how the factors described above were determined?
2. Lines 139 and 140 are the same line.
3. I do not understand the division into levels from I to V. What is surprising to me is the information that if there is a quality problem during the construction of a building, construction work is still carried out. Operations should be interrupted until the condition of the facility is brought to the basic requirements. Please provide additional explanations.
4. In tab. 3 and 4 have no units given, no reference to indicators from previous tables.
5. In chapter 4.1, lines 355, 356 and 357 - should be deleted.
6. I don't understand what contraction stages 9, 59, 67 and 65 mean. I'm asking for clarification.
7. In table 6, please explain how the Rating column was created?
8. Most tables do not contain units, even if a value is dimensionless, it should be marked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSufficiently improved to be considered for publication.
