Analysis of Key Factors of Cost Overrun in Construction Projects Based on Structural Equation Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript studied the key factors of cost overrun in construction projects using structural equation modeling and proposed some practical recommendations for mitigating budget excesses. Overall, the manuscript presented an interesting and valuable contribution to the field. To further improve the manuscript, it is recommended that the following comments should be addressed:

1 The author mentioned that rising raw material price was a critical factor causing cost overruns. Given the increasing use of new materials in construction structures, the author are recommended to review related research on building structures using new materials, such as:

https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4212

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.139917

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2024.112862

2 Line 239: How were these 24 research parameters determined? Is there a clear basis for this judgment?

3 Line 276: How were the 400 construction industry employees selected? Could the organizational type and job distribution of selected construction industry employees influence the results?

4 Line 316: Why the finders with less than 0.40 were considered to be a poor decisive factor? The author should explain or add references.

5 Line 449: The author points out several limitations of the study. As a result, how reliable are the results, and what is the scope of their applicability?

6 The article contains several minor errors that need to be addressed, such as:

1) Line 90: The reference formatting needs to be corrected.

2) Line 122: "point" should be changed to "pointed."

3) Line 229: The number "3" should be written as a subscript.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for allowing us to refine our paper by providing valuable suggestions. We the (authors) have updated the paper as per suggestions. Point-wise details are provided below. We are grateful for your cooperation. Please see the attached file for your kind reference.

Best Regards,

The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main theme and scope of the study are well presented in the abstract. The hypotheses are clearly stated in the introduction, and the problem definition is explicit. The literature review is comprehensive and relevant to the theme. The citations, number of references, and their currency are appropriate. The methods used are clearly explained and consistent in terms of data collection and analysis. The results are well presented, and the article is effectively concluded.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on the clarity, relevance, and rigor of our study. Your encouraging comments motivate us to continue contributing to this research field.

 

Regards

The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the correlation between systematic elements affecting construction costs via a literature review, expert interviews, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) was examined. This research is very interesting and provides a significant contribution to the knowledge of this field. Therefore, in my opinion, it can be accepted for publication after some revision. Several comments are given below:

(1) In the section of Introduction, after the literature review, the current problems should be proposed. Then, at the end of this section, the research work conducted in this study should be proposed.

(2) The related literature review on project management in the section 2 should be combined into the section of Introduction.

(3) Through literature analysis and cross-validation of expert opinions, 24 key factors were finally identified, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the related literature citation should be labeled in Table 1.

(4) More analysis and discussion on the SEM results should be presented.

(5) More information on the method and results for path analysis should be added.

(6) The conclusions and recommendations at the end of the manuscript should be more simplified.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for allowing us to refine our paper by providing valuable suggestions. We, the (authors) have updated the paper as per suggestions. Point-wise details are provided below. We are grateful for your cooperation. Please see the attached file for your kind reference.

Best Regards,

The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript needs to be double-checked, and there is an error in the current citation in the manuscript, which appears in line 90 as “[Error! Reference source not found.].”
2. The construction of the SEM model requires a more complete theoretical modeling, and the sources of the observed variables are not sufficiently accurate and clear, and need to be supplemented with sufficient literature or justification.
3. It is suggested to provide descriptive statistics of each item in the manuscript, such as standard deviation, etc., to suggest the reliability of the results.
4. The actual recommendations need to be summarized in conjunction with the pathways derived from the analysis, and the current recommendations are not tightly integrated with the above studies and need to be improved.
5. the literature review is underdeveloped, only a small part of the literature in the manuscript is after 2020, it is suggested to add more new literature.
6. The research on the impact of construction cost overruns is now more extensive. However, there is a lack of discussion in the manuscript about what new conclusions the research presents and what new contributions it makes compared to previous research. It is suggested that this should be added.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for allowing us to refine our paper by providing valuable suggestions. We, the (authors) have updated the paper as per suggestions. Point-wise details are provided below. We are grateful for your cooperation. Please see the attached file for your kind reference.

Best Regards,

The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted for publication since all the comments have been addressed.

Author Response

We truly thank for your valuable comments and recommendation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. RS1-RS5 mean is less than 1, and the standard deviation is about 1.6, need to verify whether there is a data entry error, and provide the original scoring distribution to verify the reasonableness of the data.The same problem exists for the rest of the questions, so please check the results of your analysis carefully. 2. It is not stated how to deal with the outliers in the questionnaire or how to test the distribution, and it is suggested to supplement the non-parametric test. 3. In lines 405-407 of the manuscript, ‘The measurement uses a Likert 5-point scale, with 1 representing “no impact” and 5 representing “great impact”. The sample size is 212, and the score range of all indicators is 0-5 points.’. Please confirm which data is correct. Normally this should be 0-4 or 1-5.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for allowing us to refine our paper by providing valuable suggestions. We the (authors) have updated the paper as per suggestions. Point-wise details are provided below. We are grateful for your cooperation. Kindly see the attached file.

Best Regards,

The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No