The Role of BIM in Integrating Digital Twin in Building Construction: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper address to an important topic and provides a comparison of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Digital Twin (DT). The paper is well written, however, it could be beneficial for a more systematic review-methodology and a deeper discussion.
General comments:
· Systematic Methodology - A systematic methodology in a review paper typically involves a clear and reproducible protocol for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data. It seems that there is an absence of such a methodology in the paper. The review could be more Systematic.
· Deeper Examination and Comparison of Topics: I propose to analyze and compare the reviewed papers. Identify the common themes, agreement or disagreement, and add a discussion of the quality and relevance of the studies. This can provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research and more easily identify gaps.
· Summary Table: please add a summary table that includes information such as the authors, title, and publication year of each article, as well as key findings and methodological details. This table provides a quick overview of the reviewed articles and helps readers understand the scope of the review and the evidence supporting the conclusions.
Specific comments
Figure 2 - add an appropriate reference in the text for Figure 2.
Figure 2 could be enhanced by including the specific number of references and corresponding terms directly within the visualization. Additionally, it would be beneficial if you could explain the methodology employed in the generation of this figure.
Line 283 – “These types of issues are also suggested in other papers?” – which paper, please add references
Figure 3 – please provide a more comprehensive description of Figure 3
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our research manuscript. We have reviewed all your comments and adjusted and modified them in our paper.
We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments and uploaded it as a Word file.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
You can find my opinion in the article, including specific comments. The topic of the article is interesting and has good potential. However, the reason why the article needs to be revised in order to be accepted is because of some shortcomings, which are detailed in the following paragraphs. I strongly believe that revising all chapters of the article and addressing the shortcomings will contribute to improving the quality of the article.
A brief summary
The article's topic is not fully in line with the subject areas of the journal and needs to be more clearly defined. The context and relationship between BIM/DT and sustainability need to be better articulated.
The article is a review and contains only 52 references. This is not a very impressive number for a comprehensive and critical review.
A stated “So, we can say “Data” is essential 279 for managing integration in our industry.” Two words - data and information - should be put in context. Only understood data can serve as relevant information. Raw data cannot be essential for further work.
General concept comments
The abstract needs a deep restructuring. The purpose and motivation should be clearly stated. Trend analysis is insufficient motivation for an original scientific article. The problem should be clearly explained, and the basic methods used should be stated here. There should also be a summary of conclusions/results in the abstract.
The introduction is focused. Research questions are clearly addressed by the study. There is an appropriately structured set of definitions for the consistent themes and entities which are the subject of attention later in the paper.
At the end of the introduction (or elsewhere), it would be useful to state the relevance of the article for publication and how the authors intend to enrich the current state of the field by providing this review article.
The article is methodologically satisfactory. The authors use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods appropriate to a research article.
The conclusions chapter should better and clearly cover the main findings of the research. It is also possible to list point highlights resulting from the achieved results.
Specific comments
Abstract and Chapter 4.2.: The research objectives in the abstract are 3. There are 4 research questions in the article. Research objective number 2 from the abstract is not in the research questions. The objective is “to emphasize the similarities and differences between the two (DT and BIM)“. In my view, given that BIM is an integral part of DT as a representation of 3D geometry and other entities (as stated also in 4.2. chapter), it is irrelevant to look for differences between BIM and DT (as the title of chapter 4.3.). A more detailed explanation of how the authors understand this objective would have been useful.
Page 3: Concept of Digital Twin: It would be appropriate to use a definition from some authority, like the Building Digital Twin Association, which states: "The digital twin is a virtual representation of a physical manufacturing system, able to run different simulation disciplines and characterised by the synchronisation between the virtual and real system in a bi-directional manner with feedback loops using sensed data and connected smart devices."
There is no mention of resilient digital twins in the article. I recommend that the authors address this issue.
The distinction between the DT concept and BIM seems to me to be an unfortunate misunderstanding of the subject. It is a comparison of the incomparable, as the authors demonstrate in Chapter 4.3 on page 11. There the authors give the criteria with quite a lot of versatility and the comparison is more or less a philosophical discussion.
Mandatory parts according to MDPI guidelines are missing: Conflicts of Interest; Author Contributions; Funding; Data Availability Statement; possibly Acknowledgments.
Kind Regards.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our research manuscript. We have reviewed all your comments and adjusted and modified them in our paper.
We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments and uploaded it as a Word file.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Actually, I found this paper is highly practical and useful, as it clarified and differentiated the DT concept from BIM through a literature review, and develop solutions and design methods for BIM and DT integration. However, I found some descriptions of very important points were inadequate or completely missing. Therefore, I recommend that a major revision is warranted.
1) Page 2, Actually, in section 2.1, the second paragraph of BIM concept introduction is more like an introduction to the development of BIM.
2) Page 4, How did authors use quantitative method (numbers and statistics) in this paper? Which is not obvious currently.
3）Page 10-12, Ten criteria were proposed to compare Digital Twin with BIM, but only 7 criteria were discussed in this paper, thus, it is suggested authors to supplement discussion or explain the reasons for choice.
4) Page 14, The characteristics of BIM and DT in building construction compared in this article should indicate their sources.
5) Page 17, In section 5.3, author seems to have overlooked the role of BIM technology in DT in future study discussions, which only pay attention to the development prospects of DT.
6) Page 18, It is suggested to elaborate the present applications of DT and BIM appropriately in conclusion, considering which is the main research object of this article.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our research manuscript. We have reviewed all your comments and adjusted and modified them in our paper.
We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments and uploaded it as a Word file.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is suitable for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments have been successfully resolved and properly responded. I commend you for your hard work and the improvements made to the manuscript. I believe that your research will make a significant contribution to the field.
