Incentives for Innovation in Robotics and Automated Construction: Based on a Tripartite Evolutionary Game Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1575060
Title: "Incentives for innovation in robotics and automated construction: Based on a tripartite evolutionary game analysis"
FIRST REVIEW REPORT
In the paper, the Authors constructed an evolutionary game model between the government, construction firms, and public universities, around the choice of robotic and automated construction innovation.
The topic of the paper is interesting as well as the potential academic contribution of the work. However, the research should be improved according to the following indications.
1. In the introduction section, it should be explained how the article has been structured by presenting the different sections.
2. The Authors should discuss how the results can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and working hypotheses.
3. Implications (for the theory, practice and policymaking) should be addressed in a separate section.
4. Limitations of the study and future research directions should be addressed.
5. Table and figures should report the sources.
6. An extensive editing of English language and style is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1:
Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript, your valuable comments have helped me a lot in improving the quality of my article. I have made a point-by-point response to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction provides an excellent contextual background of the study, citing relevant previous work, and establishes the significance of the current study in relation to the latter. This Methodology describes the design of the proposed solution in sufficient detail for a skilled practitioner to reproduce the gaming approach. Overall the study is within the scope of the journal. Therefore, I recommend to accepted after minor changes mentioned below. Minor comments: Line 3, Include a space between product(GDP) and between the text and the in-text references (e.g., line 33)Author Response
Dear reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for reviewing my article and I have responded to your suggestion. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Although at first glance the paper seems to be of good research quality, its practical value is rather limited. In particular, the Authors applied the evolutionary game theory to analyze the evolution of robotic and automated construction technologies development strategies taking into account three groups of participants: government, companies and public universities. The research is focused on China.
Although the methodology of provided research is correct the obtained results are very general and it is difficult to find the practical value of these results. The same the conclusions are very general (in fact they could be drawn without the provided research) and therefore not very useful.
To summarize: In my opinion the scientific value of the paper is not good enough to recommend the paper for publication in Sustainability journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
Thank you for your constructive and useful comment. We have provided a point-to-point response to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved according to the suggestions of my previous review report. Now the manuscript is suitable for the journal.
Congratulations!
Reviewer 3 Report
As I clarified in my previous opinion - your paper is too theoretical and it is difficult to find its practical implementation. Moreover the improvements you have done are not very substantial. Therefore I do not find your paper suitable for Sustainability journal.
