Assessment of BIM Maturity in Civil Engineering Education: A Diagnostic Study Applied to the Polytechnic School of the University of Pernambuco in the Brazilian Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the development of the BIM maturity matrix for the Civil Engineering program at the Polytechnic School of the University of Pernambuco (POLI/UPE). The paper is very interesting, the research methodology is easy to follow, and the research results are adequately presented and described. However, there are requests for minor corrections in the paper.

Line 34: It is necessary to expand the term "Buildings" - BIM  does not only refer to buildings, but also other infrastructure structures/constructions.

Line 47: BIM is viewed through maturity levels. It is proposed to replace the "early stage" with an appropriate description of the BIM maturity implementation.

Line 82: It is suggested to change "Analysis Fields" to "Fields of analysis" or similar.

Line 111: It is necessary to supplement the description of the sample that refers to Faculty members, that it is a certain number of professors at the basic-cycle level and at the professional cycle level, so that later in the text, the results presented in Figures 1b and 1c can be followed.

Line 174: Description "Title" under figures should be changed to "little".

Line 177, 178: It is suggested to change the descriptions of "basic-cycle faculty" and "professional-cycle faculty" to "basic-cycle level" and "professional-cycle level.

Line 205: The term "instructor" should be changed to match the rest of the text and mention research participants. It is necessary to harmonize the terms in the text regarding the listed participants: faculty members, professors, or respondents.

Line 295: The graphic should be greatly improved, including all figures, especially Figure 5.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable contributions and constructive feedback throughout the evaluation process. The comments received were highly relevant and greatly contributed to improving the quality, clarity, and robustness of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions and adjustments implemented adequately address the recommendations provided. We remain fully available for any additional clarifications or further suggestions that may strengthen the study even more. The comments and the corresponding responses are presented below, together with a brief indication of the modifications incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comments 1: Line 34: It is necessary to expand the term "Buildings" - BIM  does not only refer to buildings, but also other infrastructure structures/constructions.

Response 1: We expanded the term “buildings” to “built environment”, explicitly stating that BIM also applies to infrastructure. The revision has been made in line 34 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Line 47: BIM is viewed through maturity levels. It is proposed to replace the "early stage" with an appropriate description of the BIM maturity implementation.

Response 2: We replaced the expression “early stage” with “low level of maturity regarding BIM implementation”. The revision has been made in line 49 of the manuscript

 

Comments 3: Line 82: It is suggested to change "Analysis Fields" to "Fields of analysis" or similar.

Response 3: he expression “Analysis Fields” was replaced with “Fields of analysis”. The revision has been made in line 141 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Line 111: It is necessary to supplement the description of the sample that refers to Faculty members, that it is a certain number of professors at the basic-cycle level and at the professional cycle level, so that later in the text, the results presented in Figures 1b and 1c can be followed.

Response 4: Additional information about the faculty sample was included, specifying that the sample comprised 48 professors from the basic cycle and 46 professors from the professional cycle. The revision has been made in line 157  of the manuscript.

 

Comments 5: Line 174: Description "Title" under figures should be changed to "little".

Response 5:  The description under the figure was revised, and “Title” was changed to “little” in Figure 2.

 

Comments 6: Line 177, 178: It is suggested to change the descriptions of "basic-cycle faculty" and "professional-cycle faculty" to "basic-cycle level" and "professional-cycle level.

Response 6: The expressions “basic-cycle faculty” and “professional-cycle faculty” were replaced with “basic-cycle level” and “professional-cycle level”. The revision has been made in line 244 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 7: Line 205: The term "instructor" should be changed to match the rest of the text and mention research participants. It is necessary to harmonize the terms in the text regarding the listed participants: faculty members, professors, or respondents.

Response 7: The term “instructor” was replaced with “faculty member” in line 246, and the same replacement was applied throughout the manuscript to harmonize the terminology used to refer to the research participants.

 

Comments 8: Line 295: The graphic should be greatly improved, including all figures, especially Figure 5.

Response 8: The figures were revised and improved, with special attention to Figure 6, as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the effort in generating this article. Also, thank you for considering Buildings for the submission.

In general, the paper is interesting and has nice manuscript development. However, there is a few suggtion can hlep to increase the quality of the manuscript.  Please find the the suggestions as follows:

Title:

I would suggest avoiding using the shortcuts in the title as they reflect an unprofessional writing tone and can cause less interest among readers outside the field.

Keywords:

Double-check the keywords; I can see there is a misuse or inconsistency.

Introduction:

This section is well-developed, but the paragraphs lack a line of conclusion, so it can help to be more professional and link each paragraph together.

Materials and Methods:

Double-check the appropriate name of this section.

There is no need to retype a term with its abbreviation multiple times inside the manuscript. For example, lines 31 and 74.

Develop a figure that shows the workflow to help increase the quality and clarity of manuscript presentation.

Materials and Methods:

Double-check the name of this section.

Improve the quality of the Figure as it may not be clear enough for all readers.
Add citations for some output so it can help with the interpretation.

Compare your findings with other contexts in different regions. For example, Brazil vs. China and other countries.

As you have proposed a research objective and you have already addressed it, the implications are highly recommended to be included to show what the paper can provide to the community.

General suggestions:
Double-check the affiliations and how they align with the authors' guidelines for Buildings. 
The authors are highly recommended to conduct deep proofreading and editing for the whole manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please refer to my suggestions

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable contributions and constructive feedback throughout the evaluation process. The comments received were highly relevant and greatly contributed to improving the quality, clarity, and robustness of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions and adjustments implemented adequately address the recommendations provided. We remain fully available for any additional clarifications or further suggestions that may strengthen the study even more. The comments and the corresponding responses are presented below, together with a brief indication of the modifications incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comments 1: I would suggest avoiding using the shortcuts in the title as they reflect an unprofessional writing tone and can cause less interest among readers outside the field.

Response 1: The acronym “POLI/UPE” was expanded to its full institutional name in the title to avoid shortcuts and improve clarity for international readers. The revision has been applied in the manuscript title.

 

Comments 2: Double-check the keywords; I can see there is a misuse or inconsistency.

Response 2: The keywords were revised for internal consistency. “BIM maturity” was updated to “BIM maturity assessment”, maintaining “Building Information Modeling (BIM)” expanded only in the first keyword. The revision has been applied in the Keywords section.

 

Comments 3: This section is well-developed, but the paragraphs lack a line of conclusion, so it can help to be more professional and link each paragraph together.

Response 3: Closing linking sentences were added to the end of the first, second, and third paragraphs of the Introduction to improve paragraph cohesion and provide more professional transitions, as suggested.

 

Comments 4: Materials and Methods: Double-check the appropriate name of this section; Double-check the name of this section.

Response 4: The section title was revised to “Methodology”, as the study does not involve physical materials.

 

Comments 5: There is no need to retype a term with its abbreviation multiple times inside the manuscript. For example, lines 31 and 74.

Response 5: The full term “Building Information Modeling (BIM)” was kept only at its first occurrence, and in line 126 the term now appears only as “BIM”, avoiding unnecessary repetition.

 

Comments 6: Develop a figure that shows the workflow to help increase the quality and clarity of manuscript presentation.

Response 6: A workflow figure was developed and included in the manuscript, as suggested, in order to improve clarity and presentation quality.

 

Comments 7: Improve the quality of the Figure as it may not be clear enough for all readers.

Response 7: The figures were revised and improved.

 

Comments 8: Add citations for some output so it can help with the interpretation.

Response 8: Additional citations were included to support the interpretation of the outputs, as suggested.

 

Comments 9: Compare your findings with other contexts in different regions. For example, Brazil vs. China and other countries.

Response 9: A comparative discussion was added, relating the findings of this study to results reported in other regions, in line 468.

 

Comments 10: As you have proposed a research objective and you have already addressed it, the implications are highly recommended to be included to show what the paper can provide to the community.

Response 10: A discussion of the implications of the findings was added in the Conclusion, highlighting the contributions of this study to the academic and professional community.

 

Comments 11: Double-check the affiliations and how they align with the authors' guidelines for Buildings.

The authors are highly recommended to conduct deep proofreading and editing for the whole manuscript.

Response 11: The authors’ affiliations were reviewed and adjusted to align with the Buildings author guidelines. In addition, a thorough proofreading was performed throughout the entire manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and overall linguistic quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• I really appreciate the authors' idea of evaluating a BIM training programme.
  The progress of BIM around the world is indeed hampered by academic barriers.
• However, the subject lacks sufficient scientific contextualisation and questioning of previous studies.
• In introduction the question of research is missed and the objective must be clair which we can appreciate the origanlity and the added value of the paper. 
• Although the study protocol is sound, applying questioning and analysing statistical results, the paper does not provide a critical analysis of the results.
• There is no discussion of the results, no comparison of the results with the standard or with previous results, which is important.
• The choice of case study limits the implications of the results and the improvement of global scientific knowledge, not just in Brazil.
• Two essential sections need to be added: a Literature Review section presenting the context of BIM and previous efforts in academia and the promotion of professional skills in BIM. The second is a discussion section comparing the results of the paper with previous papers.
• The methodology section needs to be clearer, specifying the research methodology and providing a flowchart to understand the steps followed.
• The paper has limitations in terms of its reproducibility in different national and international contexts.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable contributions and constructive feedback throughout the evaluation process. The comments received were highly relevant and greatly contributed to improving the quality, clarity, and robustness of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions and adjustments implemented adequately address the recommendations provided. We remain fully available for any additional clarifications or further suggestions that may strengthen the study even more. The comments and the corresponding responses are presented below, together with a brief indication of the modifications incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comments 1: I really appreciate the authors' idea of evaluating a BIM training programme. The progress of BIM around the world is indeed hampered by academic barriers. However, the subject lacks sufficient scientific contextualisation and questioning of previous studies.

Response 1: The manuscript was strengthened in two directions. First, a new subsection (2. BIM education, starting at line 76) was added to provide the necessary scientific contextualisation regarding the state of BIM teaching at international and national levels. Second, a dedicated comparative discussion subsection (4.5. Contextualizing BIM Maturity within the Higher Education Landscape) was developed to relate the findings of this study to evidence reported in the literature. These additions expand the theoretical framing of the topic and support a more critical interpretation of our results in light of previous studies.

 

Comments 2: In introduction the question of research is missed and the objective must be clair which we can appreciate the origanlity and the added value of the paper.

Response 2: The research question and a clearer formulation of the study objective were added to the Introduction in order to strengthen the originality and value of the contribution. The revision was included in the paragraph starting at line 60 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 3: Although the study protocol is sound, applying questioning and analysing statistical results, the paper does not provide a critical analysis of the results. There is no discussion of the results, no comparison of the results with the standard or with previous results, which is important.

Response 3: To address it, a new subsection (Section 4.5. Contextualizing BIM Maturity within the Higher Education Landscape) was added. This section provides a critical interpretation of the results and compares the maturity profile observed at POLI/UPE with findings reported in previous international studies. This addition strengthens the analytical depth of the manuscript and responds directly to the need for comparative discussion highlighted by the reviewer.

 

Comments 4: The choice of case study limits the implications of the results and the improvement of global scientific knowledge, not just in Brazil.

Response 4: A sentence acknowledging the limitation related to the single-institution case study and clarifying how the analytical approach can still support comparative discussions was added in the Conclusion, in the sentence starting at line 518 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 5: Two essential sections need to be added: a Literature Review section presenting the context of BIM and previous efforts in academia and the promotion of professional skills in BIM. The second is a discussion section comparing the results of the paper with previous papers.

Response 5: The manuscript was strengthened in two directions. First, a new subsection (2. BIM education, starting at line 76) was added to provide the necessary scientific contextualisation regarding the state of BIM teaching at international and national levels. Second, a dedicated comparative discussion subsection (4.5. Contextualizing BIM Maturity within the Higher Education Landscape) was developed to relate the findings of this study to evidence reported in the literature. These additions expand the theoretical framing of the topic and support a more critical interpretation of our results in light of previous studies.

 

Comments 6: The methodology section needs to be clearer, specifying the research methodology and providing a flowchart to understand the steps followed.

Response 6: A workflow figure was developed and included in the manuscript, as suggested, in order to improve clarity and presentation quality. 

 

Comments 7: The paper has limitations in terms of its reproducibility in different national and international contexts.

Response 7: A sentence clarifying the limitation related to the reproducibility of the results in different national and international contexts was added in the Conclusions section.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is about adopting BIM into the University curriculum in Brazilian universities. They have tried to understand the BIM maturity level through data collection. Although this research is coming under a theme of education, it can be considered for the Buildings journal due to the topic of BIM.

 

Title and Abstract: Good.

 

Introduction: While the introduction provides an overview of the purpose, it did not convince me of the problem of the lack of BIM integration into University education. It is obvious with the case study university, but did you look at the programmes of the other universities? I expect you to substantiate your claim of a lack of BIM education by reviewing the programmes of other universities as well. What if all other universities already have a good BIM integration?

 

Methods: Good. Can you briefly further elaborate on some practical or theoretical applications of m²BIM-HEI, if available? What other matrix is available, and why did you select this one?

 

Results and discussion: You need to review the formatting of Table 3, the table caption and the sample fields. While there are no comments about the contents of the figures, you need to improve the presentation of them a lot.

 

While you have given a detailed presentation of the results, I do not see a critical discussion. Rather than, you have provided an interpretation of the results. I would like to see a critical discussion of how you relate your findings to the literature or case studies. Better if you could provide this as a separate discussion section.

 

I also recommend that you provide a table or figure summarising the key findings in a discussion section, where you can navigate your discussion in light of the existing literature.

 

Conclusion: Maybe you can move some of the texts to a discussion section to keep the conclusion more succinct and readable.

 

In general, the paper is easily readable and understandable, which makes the paper can be highly appealing to a general audience.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable contributions and constructive feedback throughout the evaluation process. The comments received were highly relevant and greatly contributed to improving the quality, clarity, and robustness of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions and adjustments implemented adequately address the recommendations provided. We remain fully available for any additional clarifications or further suggestions that may strengthen the study even more. The comments and the corresponding responses are presented below, together with a brief indication of the modifications incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comments 1: Introduction: While the introduction provides an overview of the purpose, it did not convince me of the problem of the lack of BIM integration into University education. It is obvious with the case study university, but did you look at the programmes of the other universities? I expect you to substantiate your claim of a lack of BIM education by reviewing the programmes of other universities as well. What if all other universities already have a good BIM integration?

Response 1: This point has been strengthened in the revised manuscript. The new Section 2. BIM education now expands the contextualization of BIM teaching in higher education and discusses evidence from other universities and international studies. In addition, Section 4.5 provides a comparative discussion relating the results of POLI/UPE to findings reported in the literature, addressing differences in BIM maturity across institutions and regions. These additions substantiate the claim that BIM integration in higher education is heterogeneous and not limited to the case study presented.

 

Comments 2: Methods: Good. Can you briefly further elaborate on some practical or theoretical applications of m²BIM-HEI, if available? What other matrix is available, and why did you select this one?

Response 2: Additional sentences were included in the Methodology section (page 89) briefly explaining the practical applications of the m²BIM-HEI matrix, mentioning alternative maturity frameworks, and clarifying the rationale for selecting this specific model.

 

Comments 3: Results and discussion: You need to review the formatting of Table 3, the table caption and the sample fields. While there are no comments about the contents of the figures, you need to improve the presentation of them a lot.

Response 3: The caption of Table 3 was revised, the table formatting was adjusted (including closing the table cells), and the overall presentation of the figures was improved as suggested.

 

Comments 4: While you have given a detailed presentation of the results, I do not see a critical discussion. Rather than, you have provided an interpretation of the results. I would like to see a critical discussion of how you relate your findings to the literature or case studies. Better if you could provide this as a separate discussion section.

Response 4: The manuscript was strengthened in two directions. First, a new subsection (2. BIM education, starting at line 76) was added to provide the necessary scientific contextualization regarding the state of BIM teaching at international and national levels. Second, a dedicated comparative discussion subsection (4.5. Contextualizing BIM Maturity within the Higher Education Landscape) was developed to relate the findings of this study to evidence reported in the literature. These additions expand the theoretical framing of the topic and support a more critical interpretation of our results in light of previous studies.

 

Comments 5: I also recommend that you provide a table or figure summarising the key findings in a discussion section, where you can navigate your discussion in light of the existing literature.

Response 5: We appreciate this recommendation. Considering this and other reviewers’ suggestions, the Discussion section was expanded to include a dedicated subsection (Section 4.5) that contextualizes the findings of this study within the broader international literature on BIM education. This subsection synthesizes key results and explicitly compares the POLI/UPE maturity profile with evidence from countries at different stages of BIM adoption, thereby improving interpretative clarity and strengthening the manuscript's contribution.

 

Comments 6: Conclusion: Maybe you can move some of the texts to a discussion section to keep the conclusion more succinct and readable.

Response 6: This recommendation was addressed. Parts of the interpretative content previously located in the Conclusion were reorganized and incorporated into the new Section 4.5, which consolidates the critical comparative discussion of the results. This allowed the Conclusion to be made more succinct and focused, improving its readability as advised.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the efforts to improve the paper.

A large part of the level of acceptance has been acheived by the authors.

Some minor must be addressed.

Firstly the quality of figures. The screenshots are not clear enough. 

Secondly, The critical aspect of the paper needs further improvement. To avoid your paper being considered a practical study, it is necessary to improve the critical aspect, i.e. to show the relevance of the study. This is not a matter of summarising, but of analysing the content and form. Authors should not ignore the weaknesses and limitations of the work.

Thirdly, it is strongly recommended that the limitations be shown more precisely than is currently the case, as well as the impact of the paper on readers and researchers in other countries. 

 

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable contributions and constructive feedback throughout the evaluation process. The comments received were highly relevant and greatly contributed to improving the quality, clarity, and robustness of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions and adjustments implemented adequately address the recommendations provided. We remain available for any additional clarifications or further suggestions that may strengthen the study even more. The comments and corresponding responses are presented below, together with a brief indication of the modifications incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

Comments 1: Firstly the quality of figures. The screenshots are not clear enough.

Response 1: All figures have been revised, with low-resolution screenshots replaced by higher-quality versions and standardized visual formatting across the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: The critical aspect of the paper needs further improvement. To avoid your paper being considered a practical study, it is necessary to improve the critical aspect, i.e. to show the relevance of the study. This is not a matter of summarizing, but of analysing the content and form. Authors should not ignore the weaknesses and limitations of the work.

Response 2: This point was addressed by expanding Section 4.5, “Contextualizing BIM Maturity within the Higher Education Landscape.” The revised section strengthens the critical interpretation of the results, discusses structural and cultural barriers, examines the imbalance between the maturity axes, and compares POLI/UPE’s profile with both developing and mature international contexts.

 

Comments 3: Thirdly, it is strongly recommended that the limitations be shown more precisely than is currently the case, as well as the impact of the paper on readers and researchers in other country

Response 3: The Conclusion section was expanded to present the study’s main limitations more clearly, including the faculty response rate, the single-case design, the limitations of the m²BIM-HEI model, and the absence of classroom observation. The revised section also clarifies the broader relevance of the findings for institutions in Brazil, Latin America, and other international contexts.

 

Comments 4: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Response 4: A comprehensive English-language review of the entire manuscript was performed in the previous revision to improve clarity, accuracy, and overall readability.