Research on the Dynamic Mechanisms of the Synergetic Development of Construction Industry Clusters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the dynamic mechanism behind the synergistic development of clusters in the construction industry, relying on the ISM model to discern the hierarchical relationships among the factors driving synergy. Based on data from Shandong Province, the empirical analysis is conducted through the Haken model, which allows for exploring the level of synergy and the dynamic mechanisms that support it. The results indicate that operational efficiency and innovation capacity are crucial for promoting the synergistic development of the cluster. Moreover, the interaction between market demand and innovation capacity is highlighted as the main pathway for driving the cluster towards both orderly and synergistic development. Thus, the three-dimensional approach of this study provides a perspective for understanding the evolution and synergistic development of industrial clusters, highlighting their impact on both regional and urban economic growth.

Here are my comments and suggestions:

Abstract: It could be improved by including practical implications, study limitations, and suggestions for future research.

Introduction: Dear authors, it is recommended that you "explicitly" formulate the research question, clarifying the specific aspects of synergistic development being examined and the questions that the research intends to answer.

Figure 1: Most of the text within Figure 1 is not legible. Please improve the image.

Methodology: This document does not clearly explain why the ISM and Haken models were chosen for this study, nor how these models align with the research objectives. It would be beneficial for the authors to add details about the selection of these models and how they facilitate the analysis of synergistic development in construction clusters. The goal is to enhance the reader's understanding of the methodology employed.

Figure 5: Improve the sharpness of Figure 5 for better visualization.

Limitations: The document does not "explicitly" provide the study's limitations. It would be advisable to include this within the 'Conclusions and Suggestions' section for the reader's understanding of the interpretation and application of the study's findings.

Conclusions and Suggestions: Provide more detail on the theoretical implications of your findings, i.e., discuss how your results integrate with or challenge existing theories on cluster development.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors constructs the ecosystem of construction industry cluster and analyzes its synergistic development process.

Overall, the manuscript's structure is well presented and the topic is interesting research around it is research on the dynamic mechanism of the synergetic development of construction industry cluster.

Some comments to improve the paper and its readability are provided below:

1)     Abstract: This section is presented well but the following comments have to be considered:

·        The main aim should be clarified, as well as providing some results.

·        All keywords have to be capitalized.

2)     Introduction: This section is presented well but the following comments need to be made if possible:

·        The title of the first main section is missing and has to be written.

·        The main aims of the manuscript have to be explained well at the end of the introduction section.

3)     Analysis of Synergistic Development of Construction Industry Clusters from an Ecological Perspective: This section is presented well but the following comments need to be made if possible.

·        Figure 1 has to be explained well in detail.

·        Figure 2 has to be explained well in detail.

4)     Analysis of Synergistic Dynamics Mechanism in Construction Industry Clusters Based on Haken Model: This section is presented well but the following comments need to be made if possible:

·        Table 4 has to be explained well.

·        Figure 5 has to be explained well.

5)     Conclusions and Suggestions: This section is presented well but the following comments need to be made:

·        More results have to be added with more explanations.

6)     References: This section has no comments and is presented well.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER

Line 26. This section should be labeled “1. Introduction.” Similarly, line 99 should be section 2, and so on...

Please follow MDPI guidelines for “Research Manuscript Sections”.

Please structure the paper showing: Introduction, Literature Review, Materials and Methods etc.

 

REFERENCES

Line 155: Can you provide a reference for Dissipative Structure theory?

Line 255: Can you please provide a reference for ‘Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)?’

Line 296: Can you please provide a reference for the ‘Haken model?’

 

MINOR FORMATING ISSUES

Line 48. I don’t know if you are using reference management software, but usually, when you have multiple references, you use [2,6,7] format instead of [2] [6] [7]. Please see other cases in which this occurs.

Line 90. Missing a space after ‘[19]’.

Line 161: Show consistency with capitalization of ‘Disequilibrium.’

 

FIGURES

Figure 1 - can you increase the resolution of these figures or the font size of the small text? Some of the text is difficult to read – especially that with the grey background. The borders of the boxes don’t show up very well.

Figure 2 is better than Figure 1. There is room for improvement regarding the resolution. Can you improve the connections of the lines with the ovals? Some of the ovals could be slightly larger to accommodate the text.  

Figure 5 - the text of the cities is too small.

 

MODEL

Line 265 Please explain in further detail how these matrices are derived.

Line 423 and 424: Explain why the intervals have ‘]’ on one side. Why is equality allowed on the upper bound? Should the lower bound for 0 be ‘[0’?

GENERAL

 

More insights about the general challenges faced in the construction industry may be appropriate. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses ecological and synergetic theories to investigate the dynamic mechanism of the synergistic development of construction industry clusters, with Shandong as a case study. The research provides some perspectives on drivers of industrial collaboration via a multi-stage dynamic framework. Several aspects regarding the clarity, robustness, and practical implications of the study can be improved before acceptance.

Major remarks:

Abstract: It would be beneficial to briefly discuss the point of departure, research questions and objectives, and the research contributions to the body of knowledge.

Lines 87-98: identify the research gaps from the literature review and briefly discuss how this study contributes to filling those gaps.

Lines 246-251: Elaborate on the databases and selection criteria of the literature review. Which databases are being used? What are the filtering criteria for identifying cluster collaboration factors?

Line 334-343: Briefly discuss the demographics of the survey respondents. Essential information including educational backgrounds, years of experience, job roles, company roles/industry, etc. should be added. Additional information regarding survey distribution methods, data collection period, and data cleaning approaches for identifying valid responses, should be provided to ensure research credibility.

Lines 544-596: summarize the theoretical and practical contributions to the cluster collaboration theory.

Lines 544-596: add practical implications associated with specific findings to the manuscript so that this paper can be valuable for broader readers, including construction professionals and policymakers.

Minor remarks:

Consistently use the third person throughout the manuscript (eg, Line 311).

The authors are suggested to revisit the manuscript to address additional readability issues (eg, Line 571, Line 607, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In regard to Reference 30, I see that Haken is the Editor. However, the authors of the chapter in the book are Prigogine and Lefever. Please revise the reference.

In line 281, can you please confirm that both aij=1. It seems, that one should be 0.

 

Line 98. It is best not to start a sentence with ‘And.’

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the concerns have been properly addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx