Review of Culture in Maintenance Management of Public Buildings in Developing Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study on this topic is very interesting. The structure is clearly and logical and challenging. The research is timely and worthwhile. The authors provide fresh insight into the field. The article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. 

Materials and methods: I found this section very important for the readability of the paper. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies.

The diagrammatic presentation of the study research will be the strongest section of this work. I suggest adding a visual presentation of obtained outcomes in section Results.

I also suggest a grammar and spelling review. 

Author Response

All comments has been attended too

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed this manuscript which addresses the matter of maintenance management culture of public buildings.

The authors discuss a significant issue in developing countries. This is relevant and increasingly required by builders and governments. Research is done consistently and through scientific means.

In the introduction, a detailed text is presented, although other case studies and better described -in a graphical manner- could help in the readability of the article.

In the second section different models are selected as the basis for this study. The literature review method is clearly identified, but in my view, the Maintenance Management Concept (section 3) seems to be a bibliographical enumeration. It gives a repetitive character to the wording, which in my opinion weakens the article. The language implies that the order is given by the bibliographical references, not that the argument is supported by the references that are added. I find that extremely strange. The article gains in quality when the style of enumeration is abandoned and own proposals or conclusions are made.

I also think that the abstract will attract attention more easily if you eliminate repetitions.  From the 20th to the 23rd row, the word "maintenance" appears six times, plus a different word with the same root, "maintained". I recommend using synonyms to enrich the text.

There is a change in the criteria for quoting references 88 (line 466) and 83 (line 441). I think the standard should be unified.

I also see in the text an excess of self-citation (not inappropriate, but  
excessive).

 The article seems to me a bit theoretical and has not been duly checked against building reality introducing for example more budgetary reasons.

In general, the document describes the context and outcomes in a concise and satisfactory manner that is highly informative. Data on the performance of potential situations are slightly inadequate.  The outcome of the project may be satisfactory from a theoretical point of view, but it may be insufficient to make a real choice.

The results section is partly inadequate in this respect.

The manuscript should, in my opinion, be improved with more examples to continue the research and extend it to the real situation. A suggestion for further analysis is recommended.

Summary of the evaluation: This article is interesting and deals with the useful subject for research on the maintenance of buildings, while it presents very promising results mainly theoretical. That is why, in my opinion, minor revisions are needed in the form mentioned in this review.

Author Response

All comments has been attended too

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf