An Integrated Quality Index of High-Rise Residential Buildings for All Lifecycle Stages of a Construction Facility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

However, the topic is interesting. However, this paper suffers from several key limitations and requires significant improvements before it can be considered for publication.

 

·         This paper requires major improvements in writing style, use of English, and structure. There are many sentences with poor structures, grammar errors, and unclear messages.

 

Introduction

·         How will this study impact different participants in the “Quality aspect for the high-rise residential buildings ”?

·         Authors just described their work instead of defining and explaining the objectives of their study.

·         Overall, the authors failed to clearly highlight the problem they are trying to address, and the expected contribution is not strongly argued by the authors.

·         In order to show the awareness of work that has been published recently, authors are encouraged to fully review the most up-to-date and recent (5 years) publications on the domain knowledge, methodologies that have been applied, and relevant managerial implications Thus, also, papers listed below should be added into this paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/12/8/1256

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/12/8/1166

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0002222

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001003

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17509653.2021.1991851

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9303

·         The state of the art and knowledge gaps are missing from the paper. However, this paper did not include a detailed review of the state of the art and an analysis of existing knowledge gaps. As a result, it is unclear how this paper contributes to the body of knowledge. Thus, the Literature Review Section should be added.

 

Methods

·         The methodology structure fails to adequately define the key aspects that used in this study.

·         The assumptions of this study are not clearly highlighted. What assumptions were taken and how they affected their results?

·         What is the implication of such a method on the results.

·         The authors did not provide any details about model validation and comparison with other available paper results.

 

Results

 

·         In this paper, the data used needs to be explained clearly. The author should explain it in two parts: data description and result verification.

·         The presentation of the results is confusing and not well organized as the result section is missing.

 

Discussion

·         It is recommended to add a section to include practical and theoretical implications, and how this model would enhance decision-making by providing examples.

·         The results of your comparative study should be discussed in-depth and with more insightful comments on the behavior of your results on various case studies.

The limitations of the methodology, the evaluation, the performance results need substantial improvement for the paper to have an impact on research and practice

Conclusion.

·         The conclusions should suggest many important future work ideas that should actually be addressed already in this paper to make it with sufficient impact for this journal.

A.    A brief discussion about the broader impacts should also be included. 

 

 

Author Response

Good afternoon!Thank you so much for your review!We are very grateful for constructive comments, we tried to eliminate them all as much as possible!File 1!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors had study on develop an integrated quality index for multi-storey
residential buildings. The introduction provides sufficient background and include all relevant references. Are all the cited references relevant to the research.

The abstract is so long. Please improve it.

The methodology is complete.

Please check the typo errors, especially the place of points.

Table 1: why the Expert's score is empty?

The quality of figures are so low.

Discussion is short and needs to improve with recent and potent references.

Conclusion is good.

Author Response

Good afternoon!Thank you so much for your review!We are very grateful for constructive comments, we tried to eliminate them all as much as possible!File 1!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript proposes a methodology for calculating an integrated quality index of administrative and engineering solutions affecting the safety of multi-storey residential buildings at each stage of their lifecycle.Overall, I think this is a good article. some minor revised suggestions listed as follow: 

1. The abstract shall be shorted to fit the journal's request: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

2. The labeling of references in the text is non-standard.

Author Response

Good afternoon!Thank you so much for your review!We are very grateful for constructive comments, we tried to eliminate them all as much as possible!File 1!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 I recommend publishing this paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications are good. It can be accepted.