Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this is an excellent paper.  However, I am troubled with the choice of title.

I think it would read 'better' if you rewrote it and include some of the biases in the title, maybe as follows:    How status-quo biases and traditions along with a lack of information transparency in the building industry slow down the adoption of innovative sustainable technologies.       

This or something close to this might read a bit smoother.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The way that the manuscript is written looks fine but there are major points that the authors need to consider to submit a better version of the manuscript. 

-The major flaw in the manuscript is the methodology applied. It is okay to use a questionnaire and test the results with SEM but there is no signal in the abstract that the authors utilized SEM to test the hypotheses developed in the research. Please add this in the asbtract. 

-To support the theoretical background of the variables, please add more references for the developed variables. 

-SEM is a well known and straightforward methodology but the authors failed to reflect the essence and why they applied SEM not another MCDM method. Multiple regression could be another alternative for example. Therefore, the authors need to explain why they preferred SEM and what are the superiorities of the method over the other MCDM methods. 

-One other thing is related to the data size. A total of 109 responses were collected as the authors implied but how did the authors make sure this was a good number? Please justify the size. 

-In a SEM, there is usually control variables but the authors failed to include such control variables. Please explain why or add some control variables and run the model and share the results again. The control variables can change many things. 

-In a SEM, there are some other tests that the authors should assess. For example, what about CR, AVE or other values to assess the model? These are missing. 

-Finally, please do strengthen your discussion section to justify the accepted or rejected hypotheses and mention limitations in the conclusions part. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think this is a very interesting paper, since it tries to scientifically show what we all know, that is the resistance to change in the construction sector, more from a psychological than economic approach. The conclusion is simple, but shocking: knowledge deficits significantly increase psychological barriers to innovation adoption.

The question that could be pointed out is, and I say this as a professor at a faculty of architecture: if architects do know multiple strategies BSM based on new technologies, its pros and cons: Why don't the rest of construction agents? Why don't they trust on these architects? What kind of training has led them to their current job? and At what stage of professional training should this knowledge be introduced?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is improved.