Measuring Project Governance of Mega Infrastructure in China: A Scale Development Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the paper presenting your research. I've found it well written and argumented.
Author Response
Point 1: Thank you for the paper presenting your research. I've found it well written and argumented.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 2: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?: yes
Response 2: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 3: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?: yes
Response 3: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 4: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?: yes
Response 4: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 5: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?: yes
Response 5: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 6: Is the article adequately referenced?: yes
Response 6: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors explore governance mechanisms of mega infrastructure projects in China by means of a qualitative-quantitative approach.
The manuscript is well structured and well written. It presents the ideas in an appropriate and understandable way. The introduction addresses the key concepts, moving from the general to the particular. The methodology is adequate and explained in detail.
Some minor changes are suggested below:
Tables should be reviewed in order to meet the format requirements.
The codification in Table 5 is not intuitive. Authors are suggested to modify the coding in the third column.
Review the bibliography section. Some references include a number before the authors.
It is recommended to include the questionnaire as an annex or via a web link.
In general, the analysis sounds very interesting and can have great potential. This referee suggests the submission of the paper once changes have been made.
Author Response
Point 1: Tables should be reviewed in order to meet the format requirements.
Response 1: The authors appreciate this comment and we have reformatted all the tables in the manuscript as suggested. Please see the clean version.
Point 2: The codification in Table 5 is not intuitive. Authors are suggested to modify the coding in the third column.
Response 2: The authors appreciate this comment and we have modified the coding in the third column revised as suggested. Please see pages 7-9 of the clean version.
Point 3: Review the bibliography section. Some references include a number before the authors.
Response 3: The authors appreciate this comment and we have removed the present superfluous figures from the authors as suggested. Please see section "References" on pages 20-21 of the clean version.
Point 4: It is recommended to include the questionnaire as an annex or via a web link.
Response 4: The authors appreciate this comment and we have revised it as suggested. Please see section "Appendix" on pages 18-20 of the clean version.
Point 5: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?: yes
Response 5: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 6: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?: can be improved.
Response 6: The authors appreciate this comment and we have supplemented the questionnaire as suggested. Please see section “Appendix” on pages 18-20 of the clean version.
Point 7: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?: can be improved.
Response 7: The authors appreciate this comment and we have modified the tables and supplemented the questionnaire as suggested. Please see the clean version.
Point 8: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?: yes
Response 8: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s positive comment.
Point 9: Is the article adequately referenced?: can be improved.
Response 9: The authors appreciate this comment and we have revised the references section as suggested. Please see section “References” on pages 20-21 of the clean version.
