A Scientometric Review of Management of Prefabricated Construction from 2011–2021

Comments

Response

1. Introduction: Authors have not cited any relevant study to support the argument in section 1.1, specifically lines 46 and 53. Prefabrication construction is a process, so authors need to quote a proper definition for an explanation.

Thanks for your reminder. Sorry for the omission. The quotation in this part has been added. See Section 1.1 for details.

2. Literature review:

1.There are very limited citations for relevant review studies for PC. A notably recent review by Masood et al.(2022) investigated the supply chain management intervention for managing prefabricated construction from a supplier perspective.

2.Similarly, authors need to cite reviews with topical relevancy and justify the review gap. Line 73-88, there is not enough justification for conducting the current review, which should be linked with the review gap.

Thank you for your comments. The following are answers to your questions about this paper:

Comment 2.1

It is not possible to list all the relevant studies, as an aspect of prefabricated building management can be studied from many perspectives, and this article complements the description of the excellent review provided by the reviewers.

Comment 2.2

This paper also reviews the previous reviews focusing on MPC. This paper demonstrates the necessity of research from two points. First, the shortcomings of previous review studies, which need to update and enrich the research on MPC; Secondly, it emphasizes the importance of MPC and demonstrates the necessity of its review. See lines 64-93

3. Background:

3.1The definition of prefabrication construction by-product is not explained well as authors have quoted the recent studies' offsite construction nomenclature.

3.2Authors need to discuss each type's management issues and overall performance.

3.3Authors tried to explain various terms but have not differentiated the prefab types, see studies on production system classification matrix for prefabrication construction for more explanation.

Thank you for your comments. The following are answers to your questions about this paper:

Comment 3.1

In this study, the background part is revised. With regard to prefabricated parts, the main purpose is to show that PC is introduced in the manufacturing industry in order to better interpret prefabricated buildings. See line104-105 for details

Comment 3.2

In this study, three PC types are combined as PC. In the following discussion, problems existing in MPC are shown according to various topics. In the background, they are discussed separately in order to let readers have a better understanding of the research object and scope of this study. Therefore, different types of performance and management issues are no longer discussed

Comment 3.3

This study describes the definition, characteristics, and component types of different types of PC, see line117-139 for details

4.  Research method:

4.1 Why do authors mention literature review but follow steps of systematic literature review such as screening? Authors need to mention the process of PRISMA and CIMO for selecting articles.

4.2 Keyword selection is limited, and no source mentioned how the keywords were extracted. The secondary keyword "management" was not mentioned in the search, which also needs justification.

4.3 Selection of the article is a very complex process; refer to the review study by Masood et al. (2022). Most importantly, how the screening process was conducted. The author should provide a supplementary list of articles used for this review. Was there any judgement rater?

 4.4 It is the trend to use scientometric analysis for text mining in prefabricated construction reviews, but inclusion in the current review is not justified as the main aim to conduct a holistic review which could be possible without a scientometric mapping approach; clarify?

4.5 However, for all mapping figures, there is a need for quantitative figures for the degree of centrality and a weighted degree of centrality. More rational discussion is needed on clustering for each outcome of scientometric mapping.

4.6 How did the authors classify the selected articles against each review question?

Thank you for your comments. The following are answers to your questions about this paper:

Comment 4.1

The systematic review method is adopted in this study, and the process of the method is detailed in figures and line170-182. Moreover, the method is summarized by referring to previous research in the field, and the corresponding quotations are attached to the research.

Comment 4.2

Keywords about PC have been included in the search keyword combination, and articles about MPC will also be included in the search. This is to avoid the restriction of article retrieval by the keyword “management” because many articles about MPC do not have the keyword “management”.

Comment 4.3

This study conducted literature retrieval and screening according to the methods and steps of the article and made supplementary explanations. See the figure 2for details  

literature sample list in the attachment 

Judgment raters are the authors of the study, who have been exposed to the MPC project and research and have a deep understanding of the field. The judgment rater will be reviewed by the authors at every step of the article screening and finally get the document sample.

Comment 4.4

The research objectives of this study are as follows:

1) know the MPC research situation by scientometric mapping

2) summarize research topics in the MPC domain,

3) explore the MPC challenges and

4) identify future research direction.

Scientometric analysis to understand the research through data and maps

Comment 4.5

According to your suggestion, this paper presents the data table of scientometrics analysis and analyzes and discusses it with the data. Please refer to section 4 for details.

Comment 4.6

The authors classified the research topics and questions according to the literature sample. The following is a description of the classification:

1、 Development of PC：

A category formed by research on the development of PC in the construction industry；

The research question covered in the category（For example）：

l What: What is the development level of the PC industry?

l Why: Why is the development of PC slow?

l How: How can measures be taken to improve the level of development of PC?

2、 Management of the performance of PC：

Research on PC performance and its optimization. Performance includes sustainability, quality, schedule, and cost

The research question covered in the category（For example）：

l What: What should be a reasonable performance evaluation system for PC?

l Why: Why do PC still have performance problems?

l How: How can PC performance be improved or optimized?

3、 Life cycle management of PC：

A category formed around studies of PC at various stages of their full life cycle.

The research question covered in the category（For example）：

l What: What are the problems in the whole life cycle of PC?

l Why: Why are there management problems at all stages of the PC life cycle?

l How: How can we improve or optimize the management level of PC at all stages?

4、 Technological applications in MPC：

A category formed by research on Technological applications in MPC

The research question covered in the category（For example）：

l What： what is technological applications in MPC？

l Why: Why do technological applications in MPC still have obstacles?

l How: How can technology be effectively or comprehensively applied to MPC?

If there are articles covering more than one category, divide according to the corresponding category covered by the article, which means that an article can be classified into more than one category. For example, a study that focused on a quality traceability system examining Blockchain is classified as quality management and information technology in relation to MPC. Finally, it is classified into the categories of "Management of Performance of PC" and "Technological applications in MPC”

5. Discussion:

5.1. Despite reporting several studies within each review question, there is still a lack of critical review of selected literature.

5.2 Figure 8 is not developed properly as arrows or dotted lines don't indicate any specific theoretical concept. It is very important to vertically establish the linkage among the different aspects of Figure 8.

5.3 Why not Construction 4.0 be mentioned under technological application topics in Table 02?

5.4 There is a need to highlight the involvement of the stakeholders in managing the prefabricated construction.

Thank you for your comments. The following are answers to your questions about this paper:

Comment 5.1 

The discussion part is divided into the existing research topic exposition, the research challenge, and the research future trend. The topic discussion part is mainly to summarize the research situation; the Research challenge is to critically point out the shortcomings of existing research or areas that the research has not discussed. Finally, the future research trend is put forward according to the research defects.

Comment 5.2 

The original line is intended to express that the literature sample often involves several types of topics at the same time in the study. In order to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, the arrows are deleted in this study.

Comment 5.3 

Construction 4.0 is the integrated application of information technology, including BIM, the Internet of things, blockchain, etc. In order to better distinguish information technology, this paper is to discuss it separately and review the application of technology separately. Therefore, this paper discusses technology integration without discussing construction 4.0.

Comment 5.4

"Stakeholder" is an Angle in MPC research (such as policy making and objective optimization from the perspective of stakeholders, etc.). The research Angle is stakeholder, and the object is policy and various objectives, etc.). However, this article is divided according to the research object in MPC. This paper mainly discusses the topics, adjustments, and trends of the research objects proposed in the current research. However, this paper also discusses and involves stakeholders. In the PC development part, the improvement of policies and systems, and stakeholders play a key role in the development power of PC, etc., see Sections 2 and 3 of Section 5.1.1 for details.

6. Conclusion: There is a need to mention more limitations as 'subjectivity' should not be taken as a constraint. The theoretical and practical contribution should be enhanced in terms of significance.

Thanks for the reviewer's comments. This study has added relevant limitations and significance in the conclusion section. Please refer to the conclusion section for details

Comments

Response

1. The abstract is well written. Although a review paper, it will be good to provide a brief methodology in the abstract. Also, the key findings must be provided instead of listing issues that were covered in the review.

The abstract of this paper has been revised and the research methods of this paper are summarized. The future research direction of MPC is the results of this paper, which have been summarized in the abstract. Thank you for your attention.

2. Although PC and MPC have been defined in the abstract, it will be good to redefine them in the introduction before their subsequent abbreviations in the other sections of the manuscript.

Thanks for your comments. This article redefines these two concepts in Section 1.1. See Section 1.1 for details

3. Page 2 lines 51-53, please check for a potential error in the sentence.

“Furthermore, project management in PC is more complex due to the integration of numerous technologies and the collaboration of multiple stakeholders.” changed to

‘Furthermore, PC management is more complex due to the integration of numerous technologies and the collaboration between multiple stakeholders.’

4. The introduction section (Section 1) is quite ok. However, there are some grammatical issues that must be fixed.

The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. In particular, we have addressed the colloquial language, logic, and poor language problems so as to make our ideas flow nicely from one part to another. In addition, we have polished the manuscript with professional assistance writing to help readers get a better understanding of it. Sentences have been modified, enriched, supplemented, and reviewed for grammar, expression, etc. Please see Track Changes for details.

5. Also, the sub-Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 must be put together as Section 1 since they all seek to introduce readers to the theme under investigation.

Thank you for your reminder. Some reviewers thought that it might be too long in typesetting to group it into one section. It can be merged if it will not affect readers' reading.

6. Please provide some references under Sub-section 1.1.

Some references have been added. Thanks for your advice. See Section 1.1 for details

7. Please pay attention to the in-text references. There are so many inconsistencies. Examples include Z. Li et al. [1], R. Jin et al. [2]. I’m not sure if Buildings requires the references to be formatted as such.

Thanks for your reminder. These expressions have been revised and unified.

8. Page 3, lines 95-107, please provide a reference where appropriate.

This study supplements the references of related articles. Thank you for your suggestions. See the line101-116 for details

9. Figure 1 must be well described in the text.

The supplementary description of Figure 1 has been made. Thank you for your reminder. Please refer to it for details in the Background section, line123-136.

10、Page 4 lines 130-134, please check for grammatical errors. Also provide references where appropriate.

The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. In particular, we have addressed the colloquial language, logic, and poor language problems so as to make our ideas flow nicely from one part to another. In addition, we have polished the manuscript with professional assistance writing to help readers get a better understanding of it. Sentences have been modified, enriched, supplemented, and reviewed for grammar, expression, etc. Please see Track Changes for details.

11.Page 6 line 233 please check against error. The same applies to lines 235-236.

Thanks for reminding us, this sentence has been revised, see details in lines 249-259.

12、Both axes in Figure 4 must be properly labelled.

Delete the figure and replace it with a table according to the comments of other reviewers. Detailed data can be obtained from the table. Thank you.

13. Page 8, line 262, please check the sentence.

Thanks for reminding us, this sentence has been revised, see line279-284 for details.

14. Page 13, line 350 please correct the error

Thanks for reminding us, this sentence has been revised, see line 392 for details.

15.Under Section 5.1.2, please check the contents from lines 359-366. Line 359 is not the aim of this paper. The contents seem like a different section for a different paper.

This sentence is to show that COST has a relatively large degree of restriction on the development of PC. According to the authors' discussion, it is easy to cause misleading and is not suitable to appear here, so we delete it. Thank you for your doubt.

16.The results must be presented under the specific objectives as outlined in the introduction. There seem to be some additional objectives

Thanks for your reminder. The research objectives of this paper are not specific enough, which is easy to inconsistent with the text. Therefore, the authors make supplementary explanations for the objectives, as shown in the introduction.

The objectives are:

1) know the MPC research situation by scientometric mapping

2) summarize research topics in the MPC domain,

3) explore the MPC challenges and

4) identify future research direction.

17.The discussion must be centered on the specific objectives of the paper. It is difficult to understand in its current state

Thanks for your reminder. This paper has perfected and supplemented the research objectives to make the article framework more reasonable.

1) know the MPC research situation by scientometric mapping

2) summarize research topics in the MPC domain,

3) explore the MPC challenges and

4) identify future research direction.

18. Various sections of the sub-section 5.2. (i.e. from lines 563-663) must be referenced.

Thank you for reminding me. The authors have added references to the relevant articles. See Section 5.2 for details.

19.Please pay attention to the numerous grammatical issues that run throughout the paper

The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. In particular, we have addressed the colloquial language, logic, and poor language problems so as to make our ideas flow nicely from one part to another. In addition, we have polished the manuscript with professional assistance writing to help readers get a better understanding of it. Sentences have been modified, enriched, supplemented, and reviewed for grammar, expression, etc. Please see Track Changes for details.

Comments

Response

1.  The title of the article should be revised to “A Scientometric review on Management of Prefabricated construction from 2011-2021”.

Comment 1

The authors have changed the title of the study to "A Scientometric Review on Management of Prefabricated Construction from 2011-2021." Thank you for your comments

2. Abstract:

The authors should mention the current review is an extension of the work of Li et al. (2014).

Comment 2

It has been revised. See the abstract for details. Thank you

Substantial content has been added in lines 26-28:

“MPC review was conducted by Li et al. in 2014. But there has been a lot of change in the MPC research field. Therefore, this study is an extension of the work of Li et al. (2014).”

3. Background:

Authors need to discuss each type's management issues and overall performance. Authors tried to explain various terms but have not differentiated the prefab types, see studies on production system classification matrix for prefabrication construction for more explanation. Refer to work of Henric Jonsson from Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden. Discuss the performance of PCs

Comment 3

Thank you for pointing out this. Each type's management issues and overall performance should be discussed. To address this issue, this paper draws a matrix of The Performance and Management issues of the different PC Types concerning the research of Henric et al. The performance and management issues of different PC types are described and their relationships are explored. See Figure 2 and LINES 166-179 for details

“Due to differences in features, different types of PC may result in varying project performances in terms of schedule, quality, and cost. This paper refers to Henric et al. 's matrix for variegated production systems for construction with chemical degrees of industrialization. The framework for classifying PC production systems, Project performance, PC features, and Management issues is illustrated in Figure 2. Project performance includes the schedule, quality, and cost of a project (full life cycle cost). The Features of different PC types are described in terms of integration, flexibility, and standardization. Since non-volumetric PC and volumetric PC are frequently utilized in the same project, their management issues are discussed together. The management issues of different types of PC are directly related to their project performance and features. The solution to management issues may result in increased project performance. However, some PC features may generate management issues. For example, the high integration of MC would limit the diversity and versatility of PC buildings, as well as the flexibility of the construction process.

Figure 2 Framework for classifying PC production systems, Project performance, PC features, and Management issues（For details, see manuscript）”

4. Research method:

4.1 If the systematic approach has been applied for selecting an article, then proper referencing to apply protocols should be mentioned.

4.2 Authors now mentioned the keywords extracted from Li et al. (2014). However, since 2014 the nomenclature of prefabricated construction has expanded. Please justify.

Comment 4

4.1 The Protocols applied to the methods have been supplemented in the article and references have been cited. See lines 184-189 for detail  

“Regarding the method of literature collection, this review adopted a collection approach with a combination of the method of keyword search plus and two-rounds screening, derived from the review of Jin et al[15]. This approach is integrated with the previous review steps in PC, including Li et al.[14], Mostafa et al.[33] and Hosseini et al.[34]. Secondly, the two-round screening in Jin et al. 's study ensures that the literature sample is relevant to the review topic, which makes the subsequent analysis more convincing [15].”

4.2 This paper adopts a numbeseverals related to prefabricated buildings to select keywords. Due to the author's negligence, this paper has not quoted the literature completely, which has been supplemented. Thank you for your reminder.

5. Discussion:

There is a need to include a section which compares the current findings with Li et al. (2014) to explain the change in dynamics of management of PC research.

Comment 5

Thanks for the reviewer's comments. Since this study is an extension of the work of Li et al. (2014), the dynamic changes and development direction of MPC research can be found by comparing the findings of the two papers. We have added the content of comparison with Li et al. and discussed the research development direction. See Section 5.3 and Table 5 for details

5.3 Change in dynamics of MPC research

“Since this study is an extension of the study of Li et al. (2014)[14], the dynamic changes and development direction of MPC research are revealed by comparing the findings of the two papers. This section, according to the topic classification of this paper, compares the topic findings and future trend findings of this study with that of Li et al. (2014), as shown in Table 5. From the research topics, MPC research is growing increasingly comprehensive, rich, and detailed. More in-depth investigations have been conducted in various research directions. For example, the study of the MPC process encompasses the Design, Manufacturing, Transportation, and On-site construction management to full lifecycle management (including Design, Manufacturing, Transportation, On-site construction, Operation, and Demolition). By comparison, we may determine the development direction of MPC research in recent years:

1) More and more countries are exploring how to develop their own PC industry. Many developing countries have conducted qualitative analysis of PC adoption, similar to the predicted trend as described by Li et al. (2014)[14]. Scholars can explore the mechanism of PC industry development, learn from its industry development path and localize by comparing countries with the mature PC industry. Stakeholders have a greater impact on the development of the PC industry which serves as an effective di-rection when exploring the policy and system of the PC industry from the perspective of stakeholders[46].

2) MPC research traditionally focuses on sustainability, however, quality, schedule, and cost are also important factors which need to be considered for a project. The research on performance evaluation and optimization study will therefore be more systematic and comprehensive.

3) Integrated management of the whole life cycle of prefabricated buildings becomes the target. The research should not only include the problems of design, production, transportation, and assembly process, but also the problems of the operation and demolition stage.

4) Advanced production concepts and techniques are constantly introduced into MPC, such as Lean Construction[33], Prefabricated Supply Chain theory[13], Circular Economy [81], etc. These theories broaden the perspective of MPC. However, current research seeks to investigate how to integrate and practice MPC.

5）Transformation from MPC to digital. Researchers are continually investigating the scenario of comprehensive application of information technology, and they are exploring how to efficiently apply it to increase production efficiency.

.”

Table 5. Comparison with previous MPC review

Comments

Response

1. The authors need to discuss the research findings from a circular economy and effective C&D waste management perspective, as prefabricated construction principles share boundaries with this concept.

The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. According to these comments, this paper has described the application of circular economy in the PC waste management. It is a process of recycling PC waste through the reproduction and reuse of prefabricated components. In the corresponding chapter of waste management, section 5.3.5. this paper also discusses the disposal of prefabricated components. Specific modifications can be found in lines 520-530.

2. The manuscript has to undergo extensive proofreading. A couple of issues hinder effective communication of the research findings, e.g. incomplete sentences, long sentences, incorrect punctuations, poor word choices, duplications, etc.

The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. In particular, we have addressed the colloquial language, logical and poor language problems so as to make our ideas flow nicely from one part to another. In addition, we have polished the manuscript with professional assistance in writing to help readers get a better understanding of it. Sentences have been modified, enriched, supplemented, and reviewed for grammar, expression, etc. Please see Track Changes for details.

3. The concept of waste hierarchy should be introduced and show how prefabricated construction will help with waste management in the built environment

Thanks for your recommendations and valuable suggestions. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. How the waste management is defined in this paper is that PC waste management refers to the disposal, reduction and recycle of PC waste in its whole life cycle. Specific modifications can be found in lines 529.

How prefabricated construction will help with waste management in the built environment is also explained that PC technology can reduce the generation of construction waste through the production of prefabricated components in a professional factory. Specific modifications can be found in lines 520-530.

4. The introduction needs a SUBHEADING showing the research scope, aim and objectives

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We added three SUBHEADINGs to the introduction in this paper. They should make the scope, aims and objectives of the research clearer. They are:

1.1 PC and MPC,

1.2 Literature Review,

1.3 Research objectives respectively.

Specific modifications can be found in lines 36, 64 and 97. We also reorganize and supplement the content in the SUBHEADINGs to make research scope, aims and objectives clearer. Specific modifications can be found in lines 36-102.

5. Building defects are not mentioned in the paper – use the following papers to indicate

how PCM deals with defects 

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We sorted out the articles on construction defects and considered that building defects belong to the Quality management of prefabricated buildings and added them in 5.2.1 Quality, Schedule, and Cost. This paper considers that the PC building defects are the risks that affect the building quality. The construction defects of prefabricated buildings still need to be further controlled and optimized. Specific supplements can be found in lines 393-399.

As suggested by reviewers, we believe that building defects are indeed the future trend of MPC research and have modified the corresponding content. Please refer to lines 629 and 344 of the article

6.The research gap is not clear in the paper; the following statement does not provide the research gap or the rationale for the research as it does not provide direct information about problems in the building types mentioned. ‘Although PC has many advantages that can improve the construction industry's perrformance, MPC has encountered problems in the nonvolumetric, volumetric or modular building’.

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. Research gaps have been clarified in introduction, literature review subheading. We describe the limitations of existing reviews. It points out the importance of MPC to solve PC problems, and thus expresses the necessity of the existence of this study. Specific modifications can be found in lines 68-95.

7.The research aim and objectives should be indicated clearly & consistently across the text; different sections outline different aim and objectives

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments.

The aim of this paper is to summarize the current research statuses and explore research limitations to promote the development of future research related to MPC, to better solve the problems existing in PC.

The objectives of this study are to 1) summarize the research situation in MPC domain, 2) explore the MPC gaps and 3) identify future research direction. This paper can help scholars comprehend MPC and its development process, understand the research status in this field, and identify the future research direction.

Specific modifications can be found in lines 97-102.

8.Research methodology should indicate the type of research strategy and reasoning, type of data, recruitment of participants [including details]

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer.

We have described the method adopted in this paper, as shown in Figure 2. This paper mainly includes Bibliometric search, Quantitative analysis, and Qualitative discussion. The reasons for the choice of specific research strategies are detailed in the Research methodology section of the article. The data type of the article is the literature. Please refer to line 190-194 for the selection principle and line 195-209 for the reasons. No recruitment of participants in this article.

9. Figure 2 needs to be presented after it was referred to in the text. Line 149

Thank the reviewer for pointing out this incorrect arrangement. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. Figure 2 is adjusted to line 202.

10. Issues with in-text citations. Please check throughout the text. Example Line 161-162

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. The reference format has been adjusted completely, please refer to the full text. for example, in line 66，the references are properly coded and formatted.

11. Please provide the query string to reduce the description of the keywords included/excluded

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. The adjusted retrieval formula is as follows:

The search sentence is written as : Topic And Title =("industrialized building*" OR "industrialized housing" OR "industrialized building system" OR "prefabricated construction" OR "prefabricated building*" OR "prefabrication construction "OR "panelized construction "OR "tilt*up construction " OR "modular construction " OR "modular integrated construction "OR "MiC" OR "prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction " OR "PPVC" OR "modular home " OR "modular building*" OR "modular building system" OR "offsite construction" OR "off-site construction" OR "prefabricated " OR "prefab" OR "pre-fab" OR "pre-fabrication" OR "pre-assembly" OR "pre-fabricated" OR "prefabrication housing production" OR “PHP” OR “Precast Production System”). NOT Topic = (organic, molecular, atomic, chemistry, chemistry reaction, nuclear, paperfluidics, medicine and surgery).

12. VOS viewer needs a reference

Thank you for reminding me. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. Specific modifications can be found in lines 213.

13. Just check that there are no duplications in the methodology description. For instance, the date range between 2011-2021 should be mentioned once, not three times, and same applies to the number of papers found

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. We have cut out a lot of repetitive expressions, see each chapter for details.

14. Figures need more descriptive captions, particularly fig 3 – Figure 3 should be presented in the findings, not the methodology

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. It has been revised in the article. See the title of each figure in the article. Figure 3 has been moved to 272 lines.

15. Lines 191-194 are not needed. Please consider removing them

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. We have cut the content of 191-194 appropriately. Specific modifications can be found in lines 210-213.

16. The third selection criterion needs more explanation. What do the authors mean by research article? if a research article is referred to as an article that is based on empirical research, then the results showed that review articles are also included

Thanks for your question. The literature sample of this paper includes the literature review. It has been explained in the article after revision.

“Articles selected in this study should meet the following criteria:1) Containing the terms mentioned above in the title/abstract/keywords; 2) The year of article publication is from 2011 to 2021 October, and the language is English. 3) Two literature types are selected: regular article and literature review; and 4) Focusing on management instead of the design and prefabricated technologies for PC.”

As shown in the above, we made it clear that our paper included a review article.

17. Not sure what qualitative analysis means, is this Result? The total structure is not usual- please review scientometric analytics in other studies and closely pay attention to the structure presented.

Thanks for your suggestion. The authors appreciate the comments and recognition by the reviewer. In view of this problem, we have to revise and adjust. Change the original quantitative analysis to “Results and analysis”. Qualitative discussion was replaced by “Discussion”. We also think the structure of the article will be clearer after revising. See the structure of the article for specific modifications and related expressions. For example, sections 3.2 and 3.3 are changed to result analysis and discussion.

18. References are [mostly] consistently listed at the end of the document. Please check the journal names to be consistently used, e.g. use of capital letters vs small letters

Thank you for reminding us. We have reformatted the article according to the journal's standards. The reference format has been adjusted completely, please refer to the full text.

Comments

Response

1. 1. Need to increase the font size of Figure 2

Thanks for your question. And sorry for our mistakes. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. This is the revised figure 2. We have drawn the original flow chart more clearly. Specific modifications can be found in Figure 2.

2. In Figure 5-7, the contribution network shows the countries, journals, and keywords that have published the most MPC papers. Does the thickness of the line connecting between circles refer to the number of connections cited? LINE has no direction. For example, in Figure 5, China published the most MPC-related papers. Did other countries refer to Chinese papers? It is difficult to ascertain whether China has referenced papers from other countries

Thanks for your question.

In country analysis, each node refers to the region or country where an author's institution is located. An article may have authors from different countries or regions, and links indicate collab-oration between countries or regions (collaboration between authors often represents cooperation between countries or regions). The thickness of the connecting line indicates the frequency of Cooperation. (This is also explained in lines 261-265.) This is a co-authored region/country or regional/country cooperative relationship.

Keyword analysis is explained in this article, see lines 308-310.

For journal analysis, larger font, and node size mean cases in which relatively more articles are published from the given source. The connection lines amongst given sources means mutual citation. Therefore, the thicker the connection lines are, the more frequent the mutual citation amongst given sources is. See lines 289-292 for details.

The three analyses do not consider the directionality of citation and citation, which may be the limitation of this paper and needs further study. Thanks a lot.

3. In line 251-254, it is mentioned that Figure 5 is the result for MPC, the title of Figure 5 is PC. what's right?

Thanks for your question. And sorry for our mistakes. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. The MPC is the right one.

Comments

Response

1. Overall, this paper has good contribution on this topic. Comments and Suggestions for Authors as following: the figures 2 is sloppy and their quality is very low.

Thanks for your suggestion. And sorry for our mistakes. We had revised the manuscript according to your comments. This is the revised figure 2. We have drawn the original flow chart more clearly. Specific modifications can be found in Figure 2.