Investigation of Project Delays: Towards a Sustainable Construction Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your article; it was interesting to read and review. Nonetheless, I have some suggestions that should be taken into account:

1- It is not provided any information regarding the study's limitations. A brief discussion of the struggles the authors found during their research effort is recommended.

2- The discussion section is missing. This is a crucial section in any research paper, as it analyses and interprets the findings of the study.

3- Tables and figures should be rightly formatted and aligned with the text.

4- Some references need to be appropriately cited. Moreover, some must be correctly formatted in the Reference section according to the journal citation style.

5- Overall, the language used needs to be improved. In its current state, the narrative, in some sections [e.g., Section 1, Section 2], needs to be revised to understand and gain engagement with the reader.

6- The research questions are not clearly stated.

7- In the conclusion section, it is recommended to add a comparative analysis with previous research - for a more inclusive narrative concerning the presented findings and their framing in the existing body of knowledge.

8- Furthermore, the article can benefit from sentence and grammar corrections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We really appreciate your time and effort in this regard. We tried our best to address each of your comments at our best. A separate sheet is attached with our response. 

thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

·       Line 194; Quantitative data should be Quantitative ordinal data. It is not treated as ratio or interval data, for example “calculating average”

·       The PLS-SEM result is ok, but does not follow by analysis or deep interview to find why many sub-variables are rejected, what is the most contributing sub-variable in each significant variable, and how to improve these significant sub-variables?

·       Sub-section “9. Contribution of Findings to United Nations Strategic Development Goals” does not clearly related to the findings of this research. Line 317-318 “Industries are changing, their design requirements are shifting from traditional processes to new optimized processes”, no further explanation or analyses concerning “new optimized processes” related to the findings from this research. With no effective improvements, there will be no reduction of project’s delay, and thus not related to SDG.

·       Conclusion line 338-342 are difficult to understand, explaining multi sub-factors normatively without a practical “how-to” for improvement or effective implementation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We really appreciate your time and effort in this regard. We tried our best to address each of your comments at our best. A separate sheet is attached with our response. 

thanks

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their effort in their revision. All the recommendation, made previously, have been addressed correctly. I want to highlight the work done in the Discussion section, it has vastly improved the article.

Congratulations! 

I attend to see the paper published in the Journal!