Artificial Neural Networks for Sustainable Development of the Construction Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is rather interesting due to the current popularity of AI methods used in engineering and construction industry problems. It is of interest and suitable for the journal. However, it can be published provided that the following comments are addressed.

In my opinion, the title should be slightly modified: “Artificial Neural Networks for Sustainable Development of Construction Industry“

Starting from the abstract, this reviewer recognized that the paper is a state-of-the-art review one. It should be stated somehow

The introduction is well written unless some grammar issues are reported later. However, in this reviewer's opinion, some additional reference to the use of methods alternative to ANN should be made taking into account that such methods can outperform with respect to ANN without the need for an initial dataset. For example, Hooke-Jeeves (even though is a mathematic technique), when combined with ant colony can deliver very good results in structural health monitoring. To this end, I suggest publications [1] and [2] be cited in this respect

Shakya, A., Mishra, M., Maity, D. et al. Structural health monitoring based on the hybrid ant colony algorithm by using Hooke–Jeeves pattern search. SN Appl. Sci. 1, 799 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0808-6

Majumdar A, Nanda B, Maiti DK, Maity D (2014) Structural damage detection based on modal parameters using continuous ant colony optimization. Adv Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/174185

The reading of the paper is somehow difficult cause it seems that common English language rules have not been respected. Some examples are reported in the following, even though the whole manuscript should be checked

Line 20 : “three aspect” should be “three aspects”

Line 36: “Construction sector…”, should be “The construction sector..”

Line 66: “The sustainability is consists” I should be The sustainability consists”

Line 128 “key words” è “Keywords”

Line 155 “high performance”è “high-performance”. there are many occurrences of this kind of issues. “Long term”, “energy saving” and so on…

Line 317 “Zhou et al. [104] has calculated” è “Zhou et al. [104] calculated”

Line 343 “Neural Networks are proved” è “proven”

Line 433 “Davtalab et al. [158] have developed construction” è “…a construction”

Line 494 “Arafa and Alqedra [186] for estimate” è “to estimate”

 

Line 547 ”are up-to-date interdisciplinary field” è “fields” 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reflects an exhaustive survey on the literature review concerned with ANN and sustainable development. However, a few minor additions are still required.

i. The Title should reflect that the paper is a review article.

ii. Research method/review method must be elaborated in a separate section that how authors narrowed down the topic and exclusive research area.

iii. A separate section must be added that shows the major review outcome " Review Outcome" before the conclusion. 

iv. The need for this review must be highlighted at various points such as the introduction, and conclusion. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors’ aim in this manuscript is "to presents state-of-art applications of ANN, to promote sustainability in construction industry, under three aspect of sustainable development namely environmental, economic and social".

The manuscript presents an interesting and very topical theme, but I think this material should be reprinted as a research review rather than an article. This statement is based on information presented by authors, such as: „The main objective of this study is to review the application of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)…”, or „ It can be concluded from the literature survey…”.

I believe that the abstract of the material should highlight the results obtained.

Highlight the research question and hypothesis, which should then be validated or not.

I believe that the subsection on methodology should be turned into a stand-alone section.

I suggest reloading the material as a review. In order to reload this material as an article I believe that empirical results related to the topic should be developed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

I appreciate the changes made as specified.

Please check again the numbering of the sections and subsections, especially sections 4 and 6.

Section 4 has subsections numbered starting with 5, and section 6 I think should be changed to section 5

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are very much appreciated the constructive comment on the manuscript by the reviewer. We have taken his remark fully into account in the revision of the MS. The manuscript has been improved as per the comment given by the reviewers and our response to the comment is given below:

 Comments to the Author

 Reviewer # 3:

Comment:

# Please check again the numbering of the sections and subsections, especially sections 4 and 6.

Section 4 has subsections numbered starting with 5, and section 6 I think should be changed to section 5

Response: Authors thank the reviewer for the comments about typographical mistake in section numbers. The MS sections are renumbered to incorporate the reviewer's remark. Authors hope that the reviewer would find MS up to his/her expectations.