Influence Mechanism of Construction Supply Chain Information Collaboration Based on Structural Equation Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper intends to address a practical issue in the construction supply chain management. It has a potential to contribute both research and practice in this field. Please find some comments and suggestions for improvement below.

- Introduction:

   -- It'd be helpful to clearly state the research question(s), and the motivation of the study needs to be further justified. The reference based on a Master thesis (e.g., [2]) would not be appropriate nor adequate to justify the motivation of the study. If applicable, the authors may refer to more specific and/or the original sources reviewed in that thesis.

   -- It'd be better to consider the international audience of this journal, e.g., the currency (may be briefly share the exchange rate or converted USD amount). 

   -- Also, it'd be better to add a short paragraph at the end of Sec. 1 to outline the structure of the paper.

- Literature review:

   -- The approach demonstrated in the paper is more for literature search and systematic review purposes. More  in-depth analysis and synthesis with specific and relevant studies would be required to review the status quo of the field and to justify the study (e.g., research motivation, scope, purpose, questions).

   -- It'd be suggested to establish/justify the study with a theoretical foundation (e.g., relevant theories).

- Research design/method:

   -- The technical route (Fig. 3) indicates the  questionnaire would be designed after data collection, which should be in a reversed way. In Sec. 4.2, it seems there were two stages of questionnaire development (a preliminary version with pilot testing, a formal version for data collection). It'd be better to report more details about the revisions and improvement of the questionnaire.

   -- Also, it'd be necessary to report the response rate (instead of the recovery rate).

- Results:

   -- The validity testing results should show all the factor loadings in order to check both convergent and discriminant validity. I'd doubt there would be cross loading for some items (e.g., IC6 to IT, IT4 to IC), which might be the reasons of low loading values (0.590 and 0.567, respectively).

   -- Also, even though it's acceptable with factor loadings greater than 0.5, it'd be more applicable in exploratory studies (instrument or questionnaire development) rather than confirmatory studies (hypothesis testing).

- Other:

   -- The questionnaire from the supplementary is in Chinese only, which would limit its application in future research within other countries/regions using different languages.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors empirically examine the relationship between stakeholders, information technology. external stability mechanism, and information collaboration of construction SCs. The paper has several shortcomings in the motivation, contribution, and methodology although the research topic is interesting.

1.      I recommend the authors follow related academic papers to reorganize the whole paper that the current version is more like a report.

2.      The theoretical foundation is not well illustrated, the contributions are not highlighted.

3.      The research gaps are not proposed and the results are not well discussed.

4.      There are some repetitions of the methodology section (chapters 4 and 5), how common method bias is addressed? The mediation test is not appropriate.

5.      The authors need to improve their English writing as well.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this grounded study. Overall the theme is interesting and with impact on economic activities.

The aim and the results of the study are clear, but the references are not very new. The references should include also research published in the last 3 years that contains appropriate key studies.

The research questions are clearly outlined and they are a consequence of what is already known about the topic. They also emphasize the limitations and what can be improved.

The authors have a very strong methodology, presented in detail and applied correctly. The variables are well-defined and measured appropriately.

For the SEM model implemented by the authors have been calculated all the validity and reliability indicators (such as CR, CA, AVE, and model fit).

I would advise the authors to present the VIF values. Having in mind the high values of CR and CA multicollinearity might be presented.

Overall the research presents an important amount of information as to replicate the study.

 The formatting of Tables and figures and appropriate units, rounding, and the number of decimals is in accordance with mdpi standards.

The results and discussions are not repetitive.  The results are statistically significant and emphasize practical importance.  

The conclusions, which address the study's objectives, are explored from a variety of perspectives and placed into context without being overly interpreted. The study's flaws are not catastrophic and present potential for further investigation.

Overall, the article is consistent within itself, but please read the article one more time because there are some flows in language. For example, in line 20, the phrase "The results show that stakeholders, information technology, and the external stability mechanism have a positive influence on information collaboration, while stakeholders do not have a significant influence." is not coherent.

Please don't forget to add a new perspective (influenced by COVID pandemic) presented in the articles published in the last 3 years.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the paper.

I have further concerns about the methodology section. Exploratory factor analysis, discriminant validity test, and common method bias test should be added. 

No more other comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf