Analysis of the Impact of Building Shape on Safety Management Cost

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please slightly revise the English language and reinforce in a critical manner the conclusions that appear to be limited to the discussion of results rather than more general and impacting conclusion

Author Response

We answered all the comments of the reviewer. We uploaded the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This research deals with a relevant topic regarding safety management cost and building complexity. The manuscript is well-referenced and well-written. However, being a 12-page long manuscript, it should be considered a short communication instead of an article that needs o to be at least 18 pages. On the other hand, the abstract should be improved by synthesizing the wording in the final sentence and adding relevant conclusions. Table 1 appears to be missing the citation [18]. Is this table in terms of costs or percentages? Please clarify. Finally, in the first paragraph of section 4, it should be 0.95 for the probability of significance instead of 0.05.

Author Response

We answered all the comments of the reviewer. We uploaded the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors studied the relationship between building shape and safety management costs. This is a very interesting topic. However, there are some important issues that need to be addressed before it can be accepted.

1. The analysis in this paper seems to be based on the construction site as the object. It seems more reasonable to take a single building as the object of study.

2. The authors only performed a correlation analysis using the data collected. The study is very minimal and uninnovative, although the topic is novel. Do the results of these analyses have any practical significance? For example, how do the safety management costs vary for structures with the same building perimeter but different areas?

3. For the building shape factor, the authors also used a simple formula directly. The reasonableness of this formula directly affects the results of the subsequent analysis. Different floor heights can also significantly exacerbate safety management costs. The building shape seems to take into account only the planar factor, not the three-dimensional factor such as the height of the storey. In conclusion, the research topic of this paper is novel, but the research content is too weak.

Author Response

We answered all the comments of the reviewer. We uploaded the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have conducted an interesting research related to design-for-safety and its impact on safety management costs. The manuscript is well written; however, some revisions are required before it can be considered for publication. My comments are as follows:

-          The conclusion of the research should be mentioned in the abstract

-          Some restricting are needed as follows:

-          Fig 1 to be moved to Section 3. The reviewer recommends revising the figure and including the bullet points as sub-steps under their respective step.

-          Section 3 should be renamed as methodology/ research methodology. Data collection could be part of the research methodology. So, the authors should elaborate research methodology followed by data collection.

-          The heading for Section 4 should be results/ findings, not just the analysis.

-          Research limitations and future work should be added at the end of the conclusion section.

-          Avoid using very short paragraphs in the conclusion.  

Author Response

We answered all the comments of the reviewer. We uploaded the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend to accept this article.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed most of the reviewer's concerns and the manuscript is recommended for publication.