Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REVIEW COMMENTS
I have only a few concerns about the paper and some suggestions that maybe the authors could consider:
1.    To begin with, there are some typos and grammar mistakes. Some long sentences could make readers confused.
2.    In the 'Introduction' section, the proposed research gap and the stated objectives do not meet the criteria of proper synergy. Please make the research gap and the research objectives consistent with each other.
3.    I think the “contextual background” section can be improved by adding updated references. I suggest a refs. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054603, Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231156563, I think these references can help you in the issue.
4.    I think the “Materials and Methodology” section can be improved by referencing several articles that have used bibliometric analysis to highlight the importance of bibliometric analysis, which has recently become widely used. I suggest some refs from different fields ‘scientometric analysis of scientific literature on neuromarketing tools in advertising ', which can be beneficial for this issue.
5.    It might be appropriate for the authors to explain why they had chosen the period of extracting data between 2011 and 2022 as described in the “Abstract” and “Materials and Methods” sections.
6.    The author should clearly clarify the date of extraction data from the databases, i.e., day, month, and year.
7.    Why have you chosen these specific keywords, i.e., (“sustainable project”, “green project”, “green construction”, “sustainable building”, “smart project”, “sustainable infrastructure”, “digitalisation”, “digitalised project”, and “digital transformation”). The authors should explain why they used these keywords in searching.
8.    The author should explain the process of collected or extracted data clearly for replication. For example, the authors did not refer to what types of documents (e.g., article, book, book chapter, …, etc) that they have extracted and what type of documents were eliminated from the WoS, GS, PMI, APM databases.
9.    The authors focused on extracting documents with English languages. The authors should clearly illustrate why they focused on documents that have been written in English.
10.    The development of search criteria does not justify why the decisions are made. So, the authors should clarify why they have chosen the WoS, GS, PMI, APM databases for extraction papers and excluded Scopus database and Google Scholar.
11.    Could the authors explain why they have used CiteSpace software rather than R-tool and not VOSviewer or both? Although the authors said the Citespace is more complex than other softwares.
12.    Sections 4.2. and 4.3, the authors should clearly provide information about the criteria of choosing the most ten productive countries and the leading authors. Based on the min. frequency.
13.    The authors should list at least the highest 10 productive authors with a minimum number of publications not only eight authors as in table 3.
14.    Section 4.4., I suggest the authors add the country of each affiliation and number of citation of institutions in table 5.
15.    The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work and its similarities and differences with their previous publications.
16.    The authors need to clearly articulate the academic as well as practical implications of this study in a separate section which can be named the theoretical and practical implications of this study.
17.    For readers to quickly catch your contributions, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.
18.    How could/should your study help future studies?
If these revisions can be made to the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.
I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the introduction, the authors refer to sustainable development. Nevertheless writing about enterprise-lever projects, we rater use the term sustainable organization or sustainable management. I suggest you consider spelling correction. Sustainable development and suatainable management or a sustainable organization are not the same. See: A Model for the Sustainable Management of Enterprise Capital, Sustainability 2021, 13(1), 183; Principles of Sustainable Management of Energy Companies: The Case of Poland, Energies 2021, 14(8), 2042.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Firstly, I want to congratulate the authors for their work. ‘The paper Sustainability and Digital Transformation within Project Management Area: A Science Mapping Approach’ touches the growing sphere of digitalization, sphere that connects topics that were, till recently, unconnected.

The article discusses the intersection between Digital Transformation (DT), sustainability, and project management. It argues that project managers need to pay attention to sustainability in implementing DT strategies to ensure successful outcomes. However, the process of transferring traditional projects to DT projects is complex and uncertain, leading to a high failure rate of DT projects. The authors are highlighting the needs for project managers to revamp business models to ensure sustainability and maximize the impact of their DT strategies.

Overall, the text is well-structured and provides a comprehensive overview of the topic. It presents a clear argument and is supported by relevant literature. However, there are some minor errors and inconsistencies that should be corrected with further editing or proofreading before publishing.

Although the paper meets the requirements for a scientific paper… while reading I was wondering why Buildings Journal? I see no connection between the topic addressed and the journal scope – except maybe building science. In this case, after fine grains, the paper could go to the publishing stage.

One observation though. The conclusions are very weak being more like observations and not conclusions… I strongly advice the authors to reshape them in order to proper conclude a laborious study as they made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

REVIEW COMMENTS
I have only a few concerns about the paper and some suggestions that maybe the authors could consider:
1.    To begin with, there are some typos and grammar mistakes. Some long sentences could make readers confused.
2.    I think the “Materials and Methodology” section can be improved by referencing several articles that have used bibliometric analysis to highlight the importance of bibliometric analysis, which has recently become widely used. I suggest some refs from different fields 'everything is going electronic, so do services and service quality: bibliometric analysis of e-services and e-service quality', 'nine years of mobile healthcare research: a bibliometric analysis', 'current trends in the application of eeg in neuromarketing: a bibliometric analysis', which can be beneficial for this issue.
3.    The author should clearly clarify the extraction data from the databases, i.e., day, month, and year.
4.    The authors wrote that they focused on Q1 journal papers, but again they did not refer to the type of papers that they focused on it.
5.    Section 4.4., the authors have added the country of each affiliation but did not include the number of citations of each institution. The frequency is the number of papers that have been published by each institution in table 5.
6.    The authors should refer to the place of table 5 in the main text.
If these revisions can be made to the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.
I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf