Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Congratulations on your research concerning the promotion of mental health among Project Managers (PMs) in the AEC sector. I believe your work makes a significant contribution to the existing body of research in this field. Consequently, I approached your paper with great curiosity.

 

I view your approach as exploratory, and I find that the theoretical rationale presented effectively supports the proposed methodology. However, there is potential for a more comprehensive exploration of the impact of the obtained results. Despite the limitations in terms of external validity, these findings can still serve as valuable guidance for interventions within the AEC sector.

 

From a methodological standpoint, I find the presentation of Cronbach's alpha values to be somewhat lacking. Although I acknowledge the constraints posed by the limited sample size, it would be intriguing to delve deeper into the factorial structure of the survey items. Furthermore, it would greatly enhance the clarity of your research if you could provide a clear justification for considering the small sample size as sufficient for drawing meaningful conclusions.

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Plese find correction suggestions regarding your manuscript:

-          Something is missing in the sentence in lines 40-42...What did they report exactly? That interventions are support? And it's not metal but mental

-          Next sentence is also not very clear...What does it mean „management system inform was confirmed” ? Please paraphrase!

-          Line 55: please change the word „develop“ into“ identify and analyse“. That is in compliance both with your abstract and the very content of your paper.

-          Line 152: please do not use „and so forth“, rather write a definite sentence

-          In table 2, please indicate does „number of projects“ specify the number they managed or the number they were involved in? Or both?

-          Please restructure the paper in order to minimize the confusion regarding which result are fom 9 experts and which from 58 respondents through on line survey. Primarily, chapter 4.2 should be placed before chapter 3.5. In that way it should be more clearly emphasized that questionnaire questions have been formed after the expert forum, based on the experts insight and opinion.

-          Line 251: what kind of impact?

-          Please provide interpretation of your finding that COOPM 12 has the highest ranking. How do you explain that? Are there other literature findings to substantiate or challenge that? Does this intervention seem to be highest in general, not just in terms ov Covid 19?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revision

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been written on a very significant area of research. The findings are noteworthy and will be valuable for the readers. However, based on my understanding the following are suggested if incorporated should enhance the largely the manuscript.

1.       Spell out all the numbers under 99 in the Abstract and other parts of the manuscript excluding the result sections or if used with percentage sign or statistically required;

2.       While results have been presented in tabulated forms with descriptive statements, still discussion of the findings is required;

3.       There is a need to support the findings with the cited literature in this study;

4.       The study implications should be provided;

5.       The conclusion of this study looks like a summary… could be better if revised with what the authors have determined from the findings of this study;

6.       Is it possible to do some inferential tests to determine the significance of the study, especially concerning the demographic profile?

 

7. Could be better to provide the data collection instruments as an appendix 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no suggestions