A Systematic Review of the Role of BIM in Building Sustainability Assessment Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research gap must further be expanded. In the current version of the paper, it is explained in a few lines. The same is for the research contribution. A suggestion would be to develop a summary table outlining the most recent and significant papers focusing on similar topics e highlight what is the difference, and so the contribution of this study, in comparison to others.
The literature review is not sufficiently transparent and rich to motivate a scientific publication. Because it is the only method being used in this study, it is necessary to deploy it as a SYSTEMATIC literature review.
A 'Discussion' section would be appreciated by the readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a review paper that specifically focusses on the role of BIM in building sustainability assessment. The focus is further narrowed down to three assessment methods LEED, BREEAM and SBTool. There is some explanation and justification for how the articles to review are identified and shortlisted. This is all fine. I have some more fundamental concerns with the paper.
- Please check the literature on how to conduct a systemic review. Also, please clarify the objectives upfront. What do you really want to achieve with this review? What will you be looking for? Whatever you set out to find through the review, how will that contribute to theory and practice?
- In the current form of the literature review, why is this an academic research article and why not an industry report? What can you do to make it more than an industry report sort of work?
- The current review findings are descriptive and mechanical. They do not really give much insight about issues, concepts, challenges and approaches. Please look at Table 2. I am not sure what academic value does it really hold at the moment? If it does, please explain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
An interesting review on the integration of BIM and Sustainability assessments.
A few points to enhance the paper:
- Page 1, line 41: The authors referred to the assessment taking place in the final stage. According to BREEAM and other sustainability assessment, it is highly recommended to engage the assessor in the early stages of the project. Maybe some clarification is need for the reader here.
- Page 2, line 64: Azhar et al needs a referefence
- Page 2, line 74: That statement should have a few references.
- Page 3, line 106: Refers to compulsory credits in BREEAM
- Page 4, line 152: Which combinations of search keywords were used to generate 153 results, as any of the search keyword on its own will generate a far greater number of results.
- Page 4, line 152: What was the filtering criteria to arrive to 37 papers.
- Tables 2, 3 and 4. Regarding the assess criteria, could the % of credits achieved by BIM be specified from the total of credits available?
- Page 12, line 265: Correct 'Constriction' to 'Construction'
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some sentences are too long and complex. I suggest focusing on the wording of the text in order to make the paper flows better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done well to address the shortcomings and gaps highlighted in the previous round. Please look at formatting, editing and similar minor issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper looks fine now
