What Drives Construction Practitioners’ Acceptance of Intelligent Surveillance Systems? An Extended Technology Acceptance Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study has good potential to give valuable information supported by data. Nevertheless, to improve the quality of the paper to the Journal standards, a few comments have to be addressed, such as:
The novelty behind the present work is not well clarified. In the introduction section, the study is not clearly explained. The contribution of the paper should be highlighted in a more accurate way. Novelty needs to be presented and highlighted in the introduction. It is not clear how this study differentiates itself from the existing ones in the related literature. It should be highlighted how it fills a gap in the related literature for a better understanding of the contribution of the study.
A framework or flowchart for the study is recommended and aims at developing the study performed and allowing a full understanding of the method and the proposed validation, which are not clear yet. The study needs a better description of the research approach. Particularly, please give more information on the data and present a more detailed analysis of the data. This helps the reader to clearly understand the contribution of the study. Also, this would strengthen the discussion and the conclusions of the paper.
It may be better to provide an analysis deeper about the results. Further discussion of the results is necessary. 
Please provide a greater depth of discussion about each figure and Table, and improve the figure quality as well. 
Conclusions need to be strengthened. Please, improve it, add some key results supported with data, and make it more effective.
Based on the key findings and conclusions, it may be better to give more recommendations for future analyses. 
Please give a list of abbreviations.
Also, the Table numbers in the text are not included in the Table’s captions. Please correct it accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “What Drives Construction Practitioners’ Acceptance of Intelli-gent Surveillance Systems? An Extended Technology Acceptance Model” for publication in Buildings. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements you provide to our paper.

We have incorporated your comments. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript. The attached file is our point-to-point response to your comments. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the manuscript is very interesting. The following changes are required.
1. Language problems need to be solved.
2. A paragraph should be added at the end of the introduction. This paragraph shows what follows.
3. Intelligent factors are displayed in control variables. Please explain the reason.
4. The author is requested to add the deviation test part of the questionnaire data.
5. The discussion section should be redesigned based on empirical results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “What Drives Construction Practitioners’ Acceptance of Intelli-gent Surveillance Systems? An Extended Technology Acceptance Model” for publication in Buildings. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements you provide to our paper.

We have incorporated your comments. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript. The attached file is our point-to-point response to your comments. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research discussed highly topical issues in construction's acceptance of Intelligent Surveillance Systems. The research problem is based on a wealth of relevant literature. Therefore, solving and researching this scientific problem has the potential for practical application. From this point of view, research in this area is important and justified. Despite the extensive scientific problem, the manuscript has a clear structure. However, this manuscript needs improvements that will increase the informative value of the results, clarify some inconsistencies and ambiguities from the research. Therefore, I propose to incorporate these improvements:

 

- The abstract needs improvement. There is a lack of basic information, methods, and essential findings.

- The content in the section (lines 130 to 132) is unnecessary and does not provide any relevant information to support the research and its methods. It would be more appropriate to focus on research methods and remove text that has no informative value for the reader. These passages make this topic uninteresting.

-The research lacks a clearly described way of evaluating hypotheses. Based on which it is possible to say (determine in the hypothesis) a significant impact. What the value should be in order to be considered significant.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “What Drives Construction Practitioners’ Acceptance of Intelli-gent Surveillance Systems? An Extended Technology Acceptance Model” for publication in Buildings. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements you provide to our paper.

We have incorporated your comments. Those changes are highlighted within the revised manuscript. The attached file is our point-to-point response to your comments. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was modified so that it could be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for your time and effort to improve your manuscript. The one after your proofreading is cleaner for understanding. I appreciate the effort and incorporation of comments. It is, in my view, to accept this manuscript in this form, because it meets all the requirements and is beneficial for practice. The informative value of the manuscript was weighed by incorporating comments.