BIM-Based Resource Tradeoff in Project Scheduling Using Fire Hawk Optimizer (FHO)
, Mahdi Azizi 2,†, Mahla Basiri 2 and Robert C. Moehler 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The contribution of this study is negligible, and only a metaheuristic algorithm has been used to solve a conventional optimization problem. In addition, BIM cannot play a significant role in this paper and can only provide preliminary data for the optimization problem. In addition, the paper's structure should be revised. The order of certain sections is unacceptable. In addition, the authors should revise the optimization algorithm's presentation. The results and relevant discussion should be significantly revised and enhanced.
1. It is necessary to revise the title as it is inappropriate.
2. It is not necessary to discuss this in the abstract “A predefined stopping condition is taken into account while doing 30 independent optimization runs to obtain the statistical metrics, such as the mean, standard deviation, and the required number of objective function evaluations.” It is preferable to concentrate on the outcomes.
3. Numerous claims and sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction are not supported by appropriate references.
4. In the second paragraph, the authors discuss metaheuristic algorithms and the philosophy underlying this method for approximately 30 lines. While it is not required. Authors only need a few sentences to say something like, "many engineering problems are complex, so the conventional methods cannot find the solutions in a reasonable amount of time..."
5. I see no relationship between BIM and the optimization approach. It appears that BIM was used as a label to make this paper more appealing. While the nature of the problem is a tradeoff optimisation problem, other stages such as BIM can provide data for the optimisation method.
6. The presentation of Figure 1 is unacceptable. It is unclear what the author's intentions are. This figure consumed one page but does not contribute significantly to the paper's argument.
7. In section 3.2, the authors repeat all unnecessary explanations of the algorithm from the original paper. Particularly, bringing all figures from the original paper is not required. A general explanation of the algorithm's steps and operators, along with a pseudo-code, should suffice.
8. Some sections should be rearranged by the authors. It appears that they explain the solution method before introducing the research problem. While the explanation of the research problem should precede the solution strategy.
9. The authors must explain why the proposed method is necessary. Note: Saying that proposing a new metaheuristic algorithm based on the “No free lunch theorem” is an open field of research is completely unacceptable!
10. A representation of the problem's solution should be provided.
11. Commonly, trade-off problems are viewed and solved as multi-objective problems, but this paper proposes a method for transforming them into single-objective problems. Any justification?
12. While the authors themselves explain in the literature review that there are numerous metaheuristic algorithms for the similar research problems, why have simple methods such as MVO and Fa been used for comparison?
13. The authors should improve the figure presentation. Figure 8 occupies three pages despite being presentable on one page (maximum). Moreover, these types of figures are more suitable for proposing a new metaheuristic algorithm than for applying one to an engineering problem. In this type of problem, the computation times are displayed in a table.
14. Table 3 is not a statistical result. It is simply reporting the best,.... Similar remarks apply to other tables. The authors presented the result very bad. These tables can be merged and displayed systematically. Additionally, the performance of the method should be extensively discussed.
15. To demonstrate the performance of the employed method, a thorough statistical test must be conducted.
16. There should be a new section explaining how this study will help the construction industry and key stakeholders involved in a construction project, and the authors should cite specific examples.
17. The conclusion requires revision. Additionally, the limitations and future directions should be discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper develops in an articulated way the integration between BIM platform and metaheuristic algorithms to optimize evaluation in parametric modeling. Through a wide bibliography and within interesting approach to integration with other disciplines, the authors bring from the models that describe Fire Hawks birds behavior a suggestion for increase the quality of a project in timing, costs, CO2 emissions and consumptions.
If the methodology and the approach is clearly declared and described, the paper should better clarify the application to the case study declared (five-floor residential building).
Few revisions of some parts of the text is also required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
