Review Reports - Use of Project Management Knowledge Areas in Civil Infrastructure Projects: Implications for Sustainability Assessment and Risk Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The research "Use of Project Management Knowledge Areas in Civil Infrastructure Projects: Implications for Sustainability Assessment and Risk Analysis" identifies essential gaps in construction management research. The research provides three essential contributions to the field through (i) its analysis of PMBOK knowledge area usage in construction projects across different roles and datasets, (ii) its quantitative assessment of knowledge area relationships with sustainability integration, and (iii) its evaluation of application differences between companies and project types. The research investigates how education and training, along with organizational settings, influence the implementation of systematic project management approaches, which leads to better sustainability evaluation and risk-based decision-making in civil infrastructure projects.

The following points need evaluation for improvement:

1. The reference list contains PMBOK, project management, and Turkish construction research, but it depends mainly on outdated and domestic sources.

2. The research achieves its originality through the analysis of Turkish data. The research uses a combination of PMBOK and sustainability as its conceptual framework, although this approach has already been established in previous studies. The research would gain more significance through additional theoretical support that extends past PMBOK.

3. The 272 participants in the survey provide valuable information, yet their number remains insufficient for making general conclusions. The research lacks sufficient details about its sampling approach, and researchers should explicitly address the study's representativeness and potential non-response bias and cultural limitations.

4. The study depends on participant responses for its results, which creates perception-based errors that prevent researchers from verifying actual project results.

5. The research establishes multiple connections between knowledge areas and sustainability results, but it lacks empirical evidence to support these relationships.

6. The first section about knowledge areas contains excessive detail, which prolongs the time readers need to reach the study's original findings.

7. The discussion section repeats previous findings without providing meaningful analysis of the results.

Regards,

A reviewer

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

First of all, we would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given follows.

Point 1: The reference list contains PMBOK, project management, and Turkish construction research, but it depends mainly on outdated and domestic sources.

Response 1: Thanks for your valuable comment. The references included in the study were selected to suit the flow of the research, which is why there are more Turkish references than others. Also, two recent studies on the implementation of the PMBOK in the construction industry and sustainability issues have been added to the discussion section (Bashir, 2024; Abuhussain, 2025). We hope that these additions will help our study establish a stronger connection with literature and contribute to the interpretation of the findings considering current studies. As the authors of the study, we thank you for this important comment.

Point 2: The research achieves its originality through the analysis of Turkish data. The research uses a combination of PMBOK and sustainability as its conceptual framework, although this approach has already been established in previous studies. The research would gain more significance through additional theoretical support that extends past PMBOK.

Response 2: We appreciate your valuable comments. While combining the PMBOK with a sustainability approach is a well-known framework in the literature, we would like to emphasize that our study offers a unique contribution in terms of its application to the Turkish construction sector and the analysis of sector-specific data. Our hypotheses have also been addressed within this framework. Taking your suggestion into consideration, we plan to expand the research further in future studies and conduct additional analyses. In this way, we aim to increase our contribution to literature while preserving the original structure of our study.

Point 3: The 272 participants in the survey provide valuable information, yet their number remains insufficient for making general conclusions. The research lacks sufficient details about its sampling approach, and researchers should explicitly address the study's representativeness and potential non-response bias and cultural limitations.

Response 3: Thanks for your valuable comments. A total of 318 surveys were conducted for our study, which were carried out face-to-face in three cities. The surveys were conducted with individuals working in departments directly related to the subject matter. Before analysis, invalid, duplicate, or incomplete responses were eliminated, resulting in 272 valid surveys being included in the evaluation. Since the surveys were conducted by researchers in person, we can say that the representativeness of the study, as well as the sensitive issues you mentioned, such as possible non-response and cultural limitations, were considered. This explanation has been added to our study. We also thank you for this important remark.

Point 4: The study depends on participant responses for its results, which creates perception-based errors that prevent researchers from verifying actual project results.

Response 4: The data collection method used in this study was a survey, which was administered face-to-face and individually by the authors. As explained above, this ensured that surveys containing repetitive, illogical, or incomplete responses were eliminated, thereby ensuring the sound collection of data. In this regard, as the authors of this study, we believe we have attempted to prevent any issues that may arise from perception-based data. Thanks for your valuable review.

Point 5: The research establishes multiple connections between knowledge areas and sustainability results, but it lacks empirical evidence to support these relationships.

Response 5: Thanks for your valuable comment. As you mentioned, our study aimed to establish relationships between the 10 knowledge areas of the PMBOK and sustainability outcomes. The research is based on data from one of the authors' graduate thesis. Therefore, as authors, we believe that these relationships can be examined more comprehensively in future studies using different hypotheses and methods. We thank you again for this valuable suggestion. As authors, we would like to state that we strive to make the highest contribution to literature with this and subsequent studies.

Point 6: The first section about knowledge areas contains excessive detail, which prolongs the time readers need to reach the study's original findings.

Response 6: As you mentioned, some sections in the first part of the study related to the fields of knowledge have been shortened without compromising the integrity of the study. This adjustment has reduced the time it takes for readers to access the original findings and improved the flow of the text. We also thank you for your valuable contribution.

Point 7: The discussion section repeats previous findings without providing meaningful analysis of the results.

Response 7: Thanks for your another valuable contribution. Additional explanations have been added to the discussion section to enable a more meaningful interpretation of the findings. This allows the objectives of the study and its relationship to literature to be presented more clearly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I noticed few issues that need to be treated accordingly:

- since the approach is one well known, based on a survey and some statistical tests that were applied to the hypotheses. The entire framework include: the calculus for Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, T-test, ANOVA test, Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilk Test... I would like to ask the authors to underline better the original contribution of the research to this particular area;

- in the same time, for a better understanding of the approach and research design is important to generate research questions (which also have to be aligned to the research objectives);

- I request to design a workflow (like a diagram) for the entire paper; this will facilitate an easier and faster understanding of the authors' vision for their research; I consider important to explain staging of the methods applied in the Materials and Methods section;

- give more details regarding the survey (How were interviewed the participants? How are they be selected? What was the response rate? Over what time frame was the investigation conducted? How many questions were included in the questionnaire? What type of questions were considered? Was there an initial pretest of the questionnaire, followed by a re-test for the actual survey? Was there a data cleaning procedure for this survey? What did it consist of?

- the percentage values written inside the pie charts are wrong (they add up to exceed the normal 100%);

- form the perspective of the theoretical and practical implications there is any possibility to extent the findings to other sectors and areas? If yes, which can be and why is that?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

First of all, we would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given follows.

Point 1: Since the approach is one well known, based on a survey and some statistical tests that were applied to the hypotheses. The entire framework include: the calculus for Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, T-test, ANOVA test, Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilk Test... I would like to ask the authors to underline better the original contribution of the research to this particular area;

Response 1: The original contribution of the study is not limited to merely applying known statistical methods but also involves a detailed examination of how PMBOK knowledge areas are applied in the context of sustainability and risk analysis in construction projects, while also highlighting differences in application across different companies and project types. This approach addresses gaps in existing literature and bridges the gap between theory and practice. We have included this in the discussion section of the text. We thank you very much for this valuable contribution.

Point 2: In the same time, for a better understanding of the approach and research design is important to generate research questions (which also have to be aligned to the research objectives);

Response 2: Thanks for your valuable comment. The research questions have been carefully designed to align with the objectives of the study.

Point 3: I request to design a workflow (like a diagram) for the entire paper; this will facilitate an easier and faster understanding of the authors' vision for their research; I consider important to explain staging of the methods applied in the Materials and Methods section;

Response 3: The stages of the study are summarized in writing at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section; this is intended to help readers more easily understand the vision of the research and the sequence of methods. We appreciate you pointing out this important issue. However, due to page limitations, more detailed explanations of the methods could not be included in the text. We thank you for your understanding and valuable comments.

Point 4: Give more details regarding the survey (How were interviewed the participants? How are they be selected? What was the response rate? Over what time frame was the investigation conducted? How many questions were included in the questionnaire? What type of questions were considered? Was there an initial pretest of the questionnaire, followed by a re-test for the actual survey? Was there a data cleaning procedure for this survey? What did it consist of?

Response 4: Thanks for your valuable feedback. A total of 318 surveys were conducted for our study, which were carried out face-to-face and in person by the authors in three different provinces. The surveys were conducted by individuals working in departments and fields directly related to the subject matter. Surveys containing repeated responses or incomplete data were excluded, and 272 valid surveys were included in the analysis. The sample design was planned to ensure representativeness across the provinces covered by the study. A pilot study was conducted prior to the survey, and the questions were revised based on participants' responses. The first ten questions of the survey were devoted to demographic information (age, gender, field, work experience, role in the project, profile of the company and project, project management training status). Subsequently, participants were asked questions aimed at measuring the level of use of project management knowledge areas in the construction sector, the contribution of these areas to sustainability goals, and their impact on projects. The data obtained from the surveys was organized in a manner suitable for testing the hypotheses. During this process, forms containing repeated, illogical, or incomplete responses were filtered out to ensure the reliability of the data. A summary of these points has been added to the paper.

Point 5: The percentage values written inside the pie charts are wrong (they add up to exceed the normal 100%)

Response 5: Thanks for your valuable comment. The percentage values in the pie charts have been checked. The numbers on the left side of the pie charts show the number of participants, while the numbers on the right side show the corresponding percentage values. This is to ensure that the data can be understood both numerically and as a ratio.

Point 6: Form the perspective of the theoretical and practical implications there is any possibility to extent the findings to other sectors and areas? If yes, which can be and why is that?

Response 6: The findings obtained have the potential to be extended to different sectors such as health, finance, and industry. However, our study is the first research conducted using these methods in the Turkish construction sector. Your advice is very valuable to us; the authors plan to focus on sectoral comparisons in this direction in future studies. Thanks for your kind comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study objectives are clear: The Integration of sustainability principles when applying the Project Management Body of Knowledge guide in construction projects. The authors have explained the gaps in current knowledge which their study aims to fill.

Introduction is well written, with explanation for the need for good project management and the use of Project Management Body of Knowledge, also known as PMBOK®. Each of the 10 elements of the Guide is explained succinctly and clearly.

Materials and method section:

This is divided into material and method. The material segment explains the scope and the background setting of the research.

The method section explains how the data was collected and lists the six hypotheses neatly in a table. Analytical methods are clearly explained and the values in range that will be used to perform the analysis are clearly stated.

Section 2.2.1: Questionnaire design: it is not clear if the non-demographic questionnaires were on a scale of one to five or one to ten. How many questions were included for each element of the guide? Tables 4 and 5 provide the different relationship between use of the project management knowledge areas and other parameters. In order to understand this study, it is necessary to give more information about the questionnaire how it was organized and scored. What does the Mean Rank in these tables measure. Is it a rank for all the ten elements?

Section 3.2 consists of seven pie charts, some of them are mentioned in the corresponding text but some are not. It will be better to ensure that the figure number is mentioned in the corresponding text to ensure that the reader can be very clear about which pie chart refers to what statistic.

Table 3. Relationship between Use of Project Management Knowledge Areas and Education Level, own elaboration. What is the meaning of own elaboration?

Lines 376-384: What is the mean value how did they score was there any question on sustainability in the questionnaire. This is not covered in the ten elements, so how did the authors gather this information?

Discussion:

At each level in the results section the authors have rejected the hypothesis or accepted the hypothesis which is written clearly. The discussions are commensurate with what is provided in the results. Sustainability goal is mentioned under each hypothesis in the conclusion section. Integration of sustainability principles is one of the things that is being studied in this project. Therefore, it will help to have more information on the development of the questions, the scoring system and which of the elements were covered and how was sustainability brought into the questionnaire.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

First of all, we would like to thank Reviewer 3 for the valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given follows.

Point 1: The study objectives are clear: The Integration of sustainability principles when applying the Project Management Body of Knowledge guide in construction projects. The authors have explained the gaps in current knowledge which their study aims to fill.

Materials and method section:

This is divided into material and method. The material segment explains the scope and the background setting of the research.

Response 1: Thanks for your valuable comments and positive feedback. We are pleased that you found the objectives and methods of our study to be clearly communicated.

Point 2: Section 2.2.1: Questionnaire design: it is not clear if the non-demographic questionnaires were on a scale of one to five or one to ten. How many questions were included for each element of the guide? Tables 4 and 5 provide the different relationship between use of the project management knowledge areas and other parameters. In order to understand this study, it is necessary to give more information about the questionnaire how it was organized and scored. What does the Mean Rank in these tables measure. Is it a rank for all the ten elements?

Response 2: Thanks for your valuable feedback. Non-demographic questions are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, and a total of 28 questions related to each element of the guide are included in the survey. The survey's structure and scoring method have been added to the article and explained in detail. Furthermore, the Mean Rank in Tables 4 and 5 shows the group averages calculated based on the rank value of each observation in the Kruskal-Wallis test, allowing for a comparison of the relative magnitudes of the groups' scores.

Point 3: Section 3.2 consists of seven pie charts, some of them are mentioned in the corresponding text but some are not. It will be better to ensure that the figure number is mentioned in the corresponding text to ensure that the reader can be very clear about which pie chart refers to what statistic.

Response 3: Thanks for your valuable comment. All pie charts in Section 3.2 have been labeled with their corresponding figure numbers in the text. This arrangement allows readers to easily follow which statistic each chart represents.

Point 4: Table 3. Relationship between Use of Project Management Knowledge Areas and Education Level, own elaboration. What is the meaning of own elaboration?

Response 4: Thanks for your valuable comment. The phrase “own elaboration” in Table 3 means that the relevant section was created from one of the authors' thesis. To avoid confusion, we deemed it appropriate to remove this phrase from the table.

Point 5: Lines 376-384: What is the mean value how did they score was there any question on sustainability in the questionnaire. This is not covered in the ten elements, so how did the authors gather this information?

Response 5: To assess the normality of the data in the specified rows, both the shape of the distribution and statistical tests were calculated using the SPSS program. Skewness and kurtosis indicate the symmetry and flatness of the data, while the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests statistically evaluate normality; thus, a robust normality analysis has been provided visually, numerically, and statistically. Data related to sustainability was analyzed using an approach linked to questions within the scope of the ten knowledge areas of the PMBOK. Due to the length of the survey and page limitations, we were unable to include all questions in the article; for more details, you can access the full survey via the link to our thesis work at the end of the article. Thanks for your valuable comments.

Point 6: At each level in the results section the authors have rejected the hypothesis or accepted the hypothesis which is written clearly. The discussions are commensurate with what is provided in the results. Sustainability goal is mentioned under each hypothesis in the conclusion section. Integration of sustainability principles is one of the things that is being studied in this project. Therefore, it will help to have more information on the development of the questions, the scoring system and which of the elements were covered and how was sustainability brought into the questionnaire.

Response 6: Thanks for your kind comment. Our study aims to address the 10 knowledge areas of the PMBOK and sustainability principles together. In this context, survey questions were developed, and hypotheses were formed based on these questions. The results obtained were analyzed and presented in the discussion section. Following your suggestion, information about the survey development process and the scoring system has been added to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments addressed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank again Reviewer 1 for checking our manuscript and reviewing it. We feel satisfied with addressing all suggestions in the updated version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

What I noticed is that you agreed with most of the observations but you only operated in very few places that I commented. I will repeat the same points with a recap.

Point 2. I did not find the research questions associated with the research objectives.

Point 3. I requested a flow/workflow diagram regarding the logic of conducting the research (for the entire paper). It does not exist. This request refers to a graphic representation and not to written developments. The diagram is much easier to visualize and understand it by those interested. It is important and useful to see the authors' approach to how they thought about conducting the entire research in stages (step by step). I did not understand the statement related to page limitations. There are articles that have 30 pages. The present paper has only 20 pages. I do not see the problem of explaining the methods in detail, by adding 1, 2 pages!

Point 5. The presentation method within the pie-chart representations is unfortunate. I recommend that only the percentages be left in these diagrams (in the pie charts). However, the other figures are found in the text. This is to eliminate any misinterpretation.

Point 6. I did not make a request that you should consider in the future. I asked to describe what are the possibilities to extend the paper's findings to other sectors. In addition, I requested that the mention of a proposed sector be accompanied by relevant arguments that confirm the proposal. This is also an issue that could confirm what you declare as being the innovative part of your article.

Therefore, I request that each of these points be treated a little more carefully and in addition I request that you mention exactly and highlight the areas/lines that have been modified and/or added.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments – Round 2

First of all, we would like to thank again Reviewer 2 for the valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given follows. Note: Reviewer’s original numbering has been retained in the following part.

Remark: What I noticed is that you agreed with most of the observations but you only operated in very few places that I commented. I will repeat the same points with a recap.

Response: Thank you for the careful reread and for reiterating your points. In the revised manuscript we have implemented all of your suggestions, not only at isolated spots but throughout the paper. We trust these comprehensive revisions address your concerns.

Point 2: I did not find the research questions associated with the research objectives.

Response 2: Thank you for this observation. The research questions have been added at the end of the Introduction—as a summary of the argument and a clear operationalization of the research objectives (see Section 1.2.). We now present three questions (RQ1–RQ3) explicitly linked to the stated aims, followed by a bridging sentence that leads into the Materials and Methods section. This aligns the flow from “objectives” → “research questions” → “methods” → “results”.

Point 3: I requested a flow/workflow diagram regarding the logic of conducting the research (for the entire paper). It does not exist. This request refers to a graphic representation and not to written developments. The diagram is much easier to visualize and understand it by those interested. It is important and useful to see the authors' approach to how they thought about conducting the entire research in stages (step by step). I did not understand the statement related to page limitations. There are articles that have 30 pages. The present paper has only 20 pages. I do not see the problem of explaining the methods in detail, by adding 1, 2 pages!

Response 3: In line with your suggestion, a diagram showing the logic of the research step by step has been added to the study. In addition, the methods used in the research have been explained in a detailed way, and additions have been made to help readers better understand the process. With these revisions, we believe that the methodological approach of our work has become clearer and more understandable. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Point 5: The presentation method within the pie-chart representations is unfortunate. I recommend that only the percentages be left in these diagrams (in the pie charts). However, the other figures are found in the text. This is to eliminate any misinterpretation.

Response 5: Thanks for your valuable comment. In line with your suggestion, only percentage values have been left in the pie charts. This ensures that the charts are easier to understand.

Point 6: I did not make a request that you should consider in the future. I asked to describe what are the possibilities to extend the paper's findings to other sectors. In addition, I requested that the mention of a proposed sector be accompanied by relevant arguments that confirm the proposal. This is also an issue that could confirm what you declare as being the innovative part of your article.

Response 6: Thank you for the clarification. We have now addressed cross-sector extension in the manuscript itself by adding Section 5.3: “Possibilities for Cross-Sector Extension”. It specifies target sectors with brief references: healthcare, energy industry or software development. This revision is performed in Conclusions, directly reinforcing the article’s innovative contribution beyond construction.

Remark: Therefore, I request that each of these points be treated a little more carefully and in addition I request that you mention exactly and highlight the areas/lines that have been modified and/or added.

Response: Thank you. We have carefully revised each point and submitted a revised file. All edits were made with Track Changes ON; insertions and added passages are highlighted in red, and deletions are also visible. Changes are mainly concentrated in Sec. 1.2, Secs. 2.1–2.3, Figure 1, Sec. 3, Sec. 4, Sec. 5.3, and References.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Mainly, now is better. For sure the title for the figure 1 is wrong. So please correct.

Also, proceed to final checks.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments – Round 3

First of all, we would like to thank again Reviewer 2 for the valuable comments and suggestions. The suggestions/comments, our responses and the changes made are given follows

Remark: Mainly, now is better. For sure the title for the figure 1 is wrong. So please correct.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the caption to “Figure 1. Workflow of the study.”. This update is visible in the tracked-changes file. We also re-reviewed the entire manuscript to eliminate similar lapses and oversights.