7-Score Function for Assessing the Strength of Association Rules Applied for Construction Risk Quantifying
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
The authors used a significant portion of the abstract to describe the problem. However, the overarching aim of the study is not discussed.
The research questions or hypotheses should be noted.
Also, in the abstract, the manuscript should highlight the key findings of the study.
On page 3 of 20 (line 100), please avoid starting a sentence with a number. Instead, start the sentence with Seven-score ……
In the introduction, the manuscript should state the research gaps the current study intends to address.
The main objectives of the research should be presented.
In section 2, the manuscript should consider data protocol for this study.
There are numerous equations (over 12) presented in this manuscript. The study should also present the most relevant equations and discuss how their usefulness to this study.
Figure 6 shows a scatter plot. However, the figure provides no information about the link between the variables. It appears the figure needs further assessments.
Please revise Figure 5 and Figure 7 to make the texts on the axes readable.
On page 11 of 20, there is an equation labeled (11). On page 14 of 20, another equation is labeled (11). The authors should check the numbering of the equations and revise accordingly.
Revise Figure 9 and Figure 10. Some of the data for Cr-E-J-L are missing.
What are the key findings of the research? The manuscript should discuss the findings.
A comparative analysis of the findings obtained in this study with existing research should be discussed.
The research has some limitations. The manuscript should highlight some of these limitations.
In the conclusion, the manuscript should discuss the practical applications and implications of the research.
Possible areas for future research should be discussed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for the remarks. The article was improved accordingly. Our detailed notes on improvements and discussion can be found below. For your convenience, they are placed below the corresponding remarks.
- The authors used a significant portion of the abstract to describe the problem. However, the overarching aim of the study is not discussed.
Addressed: The abstract is changed in order to highlight the overarching aim of the study more.
- The research questions or hypotheses should be noted.
Addressed: the flowchart with the three main innovative approaches is presented in the introduction. The final part of the text of the introduction is also supplemented.
- Also, in the abstract, the manuscript should highlight the key findings of the study.
Addressed: The abstract is changed. The aim of the research is underlined. Key findings are highlighted. Additionally, these aspects are also improved in the body of the article.
- On page 3 of 20 (line 100), please avoid starting a sentence with a number. Instead, start the sentence with Seven-score ……
Many thanks for the remark. “7-score” is the name of the method and for this reason, we did not want to change it to “Seven-score”. However, we have found the another way to avoid starting a sentence with a number. The sentence is improved.
- In the introduction, the manuscript should state the research gaps the current study intends to address.
Addressed: The article is improved. Section 1 - Introduction is remodeled in order to state the research gaps our study addressed and to present the main objectives of the research.
- The main objectives of the research should be presented.
Addressed: The article is improved. Section 1 - Introduction is remodeled in order to state the research gaps our study addressed and to present the main objectives of the research.
- In section 2, the manuscript should consider data protocol for this study.
As we – the authors – understand the remark, it concerns data availability. They are published in [2].
- There are numerous equations (over 12) presented in this manuscript. The study should also present the most relevant equations and discuss how their usefulness to this study.
The equation numbering was corrected. The usefulness of each equation is provided in the text of the article in the corresponding chapters of the article. The equations from 1 to 4 are for presenting association analysis (section 2.1). Equation (5) is for the case presentation (Section 2.2). The formula for the strength of the rule (one of the cores of the article) is presented as equation (6) and it is described as “strength of the rule”. The rest of the formulas in Section 3.1 i.e. the formulas from 7 to 10, are to prove the idea of formula (6). Then, in section 3.2 the formula (6) is presented as the aim function in equation (11). In the Discussion section formulas 12, 13 and 14 help to prove the findings presented there. In the opinion of the authors, there is no need of additional emphasizing the importance of presented formulas, as it is clearly explained in the text.
- Figure 6 shows a scatter plot. However, the figure provides no information about the link between the variables. It appears the figure needs further assessments.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 have axis described. They do not refer to the independent or dependent variables. They refer to the sup, conf, and 7-score of the rules found. In our opinion, the reasons for creating such figures and the outcome from them are described in detail. The description starts above Figure 5 and ends below figure 7. The readability of graphics is improved.
- Please revise Figure 5 and Figure 7 to make the texts on the axes readable.
Addressed. The readability of these figures is improved.
- On page 11 of 20, there is an equation labeled (11). On page 14 of 20, another equation is labeled (11). The authors should check the numbering of the equations and revise accordingly.
Many thanks for the remark. The numbering of equations is corrected.
- Revise Figure 9 and Figure 10. Some of the data for Cr-E-J-L are missing.
The data is missing because the algorithms did not find any solutions feasible for a given rule and corresponding durations. The explanation of these discontinuities exists in the original manuscript in lines 431-434. It is supplemented with the word “discontinuities” placed in brackets, in the revised version.
- What are the key findings of the research? The manuscript should discuss the findings.
The key findings are introduced in improved Section 1 (also Figure 1 is added, to explain it more). The 7-score measure is introduced (and widely described in 3.1 section). Having this function, it was possible to apply it as the aim function in Tabu Search algorithm to find the thresholds that maximize the informativeness of the analyzed rules. The usage of this procedure for risk assessment for a construction project (the aim of the article; stated also in the title; based on real data) is widely discussed in the discussion section.
- A comparative analysis of the findings obtained in this study with existing research should be discussed.
Addressed: the discussion section is supplemented at its end.
- The research has some limitations. The manuscript should highlight some of these limitations.
Addressed: The limitations are currently highlighted in the discussion and conclusion section.
- In the conclusion, the manuscript should discuss the practical applications and implications of the research.
The practical application is presented in the discussion section. The dataset applied reflects real data (as stated in the article). The proposed method applied for the current data of the completed contracts will produce the risk assessment for the current market state. Willing to emphasize that, the conclusion section is updated.
- Possible areas for future research should be discussed.
Future application of the invented method is planned for risk of cost-overrun (for the construction contracts) – it is mentioned in the conclusion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The presentation of this manuscript was good enough in terms of structure and English language. Moreover, the paper is subjected to a lot of major improvement before being accepted for publication:
- Clearly define the importance and necessity of 7-Score Function.
- Novelty and aim of the work should be specific.
- ‘Thanks to…………’ – used four times in the manuscript. These are not common scientific language. Change these sentences.
- The axis values and titles are not clear in Figure 5 and 7.
- Give the authors name instead on direct referring in page 4 line 161; page 5 line 189; page 11 line 325; line 333 and page 12 line 357.
- A brief description on Cr-E-J-L and A-E-K are important and will make it easy for readers.
- Page 12 line 354 ‘if Cr-R-J-L then D; if A-E-K then D’ – is not clear.
- What was the reason for higher confidences for Cr-E-J-L compare to A-E-K?
- What was the reason for higher 7-score values for A-E-K compare to Cr-E-J-L?
- Language need to improvement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for the remarks. The article was improved accordingly. Our detailed notes on improvements and discussion can be found below. For your convenience, they are placed below the corresponding remarks.
The presentation of this manuscript was good enough in terms of structure and English language. Moreover, the paper is subjected to a lot of major improvement before being accepted for publication:
Many thanks for praise of the structure and English language. The improvements were done according to the remarks of the reviewers.
- Clearly define the importance and necessity of 7-Score Function.
Addressed: the necessity and key importance of the 7-Score function is described now more at the end of Introduction Section, together with Figure 1.
- Novelty and aim of the work should be specific.
Addressed: the novelty, and the key findings of the clearly presented in Figure 1 (the new one). The text is also adjusted to emphasize the key findings.
- ‘Thanks to…………’ – used four times in the manuscript. These are not common scientific language. Change these sentences.
Many thanks for the remark. The sentences were improved. Additionally, the article was proofread by a native speaker.
- The axis values and titles are not clear in Figure 5 and 7.
Addressed. The readability of these figures is improved.
- Give the authors name instead on direct referring in page 4 line 161; page 5 line 189; page 11 line 325; line 333 and page 12 line 357.
The usage of names in the articles published by MDPI we met, is limited to the introduction section. We propose to leave this issue up the decision of the Editor.
- A brief description on Cr-E-J-L and A-E-K are important and will make it easy for readers.
The descriptions of Cr-E-J-L and A-E-K are presented in Table 2. The text e.g. in section 3.2, where the problem is being solved, refers to table 2. In fact, the majority of section 2.2 is used for description of the independent variables as Cr, E, J, L, A, E, K are. The choice of just these two predecessors of the rules Cr-E-J-L and A-E-K (out of many combinations of 12 independent variables) is justified in [27] – as it is presented in the current figure 1.
- Page 12 line 354 ‘if Cr-R-J-L then D; if A-E-K then D’ – is not clear.
Addressed: The end of Section 3.2 is supplemented with the clear explanation of the most informative rules found.
- What was the reason for higher confidences for Cr-E-J-L compare to A-E-K?
As the dependent variable (conf) depends on 4 independent variables, the reason for higher confidence lays in the dataset. The collected data, the optimum thresholds found, and the applied aim function (created 7-score) has brought the results. The maximum informativeness of the rules is searched. Achieving that the confidences can be also read but it wasn’t an aim to compare them, but to maximize the informativeness of these rules (it depends in the three values: conf, sup and lift).
- What was the reason for higher 7-score values for A-E-K compare to Cr-E-J-L?
The 7-score measure of the informativeness of the rules is created and it is based on conf, sup and lift. The values of these three ratios depend on data collected and the thresholds applied. The thresholds are found with the metaheuristic algorithm where max of 7-score is searched.
- Language need to improvement.
Many thanks for this remark. The article was revised. Additional check / proofreading was performed by a native speaker.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed some of the issues identified in the previous version of the manuscript. The manuscript can be considered for publication in the journal.
