A Systematic Literature Review of Augmented Reality’s Development in Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this paper collected 136 publications on the application of Augmented Reality (AR) in the construction industry, published between 2019 and 2025, and conducted a systematic literature review focusing on frameworks, technologies, trends, and challenges. The study offers valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers interested in implementing AR technologies in the construction sector. This is a highly valuable and informative paper. To further improve its readability, the following suggestions are proposed:

1. Type of manuscript: It should be classified as a Review rather than an Article.
2. Table A10: Revise it to a horizontal and consistent format.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his very helpful and detailed comments.

1. Type of manuscript: It should be classified as a Review rather than an Article.

Thank you very much for your comment; it has been corrected.

1. Table A10: Revise it to a horizontal and consistent format.

Thank you for your comment. The table has been corrected, and the numbering of Appendices A and B, as well as the figures. The former Table A10 is now listed as Table A3.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a systematic literature review on the applications of argumented reality to the construction sector.

1) The trends and challenges section lacks specific examples of real world AR applications in construction. How do these trends actually manifest on construction sites? The paper have to  include more concrete case studies or examples where these trends are actively transforming construction practices. Without such examples, the reader is left with vague assertions about the potential benefits of AR.

2) How generalizable are the findings to the global construction industry, given the concentration of studies in a few countries the ( U.S., China, and Australia)? The authors should discuss how the geographic concentration of studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. They should also explore whether AR applications in construction have specific regional barriers or opportunities that are not addressed by the current literature review.  Is the focus on AR-BIM integration overly optimistic given the current technological maturity?

3) The study should include a more critical assessment of the challenges AR faces when integrated with Building Information Modeling, such as the issues of data interoperability, system integration, and the complexity of maintaining real time updates. The paper identifies ergonomic and cognitive challenges with AR devices but fails to provide actionable solutions. How can these limitations be addressed in future research. The authors should propose specific solutions or research directions aimed at addressing the ergonomic and cognitive challenges of AR use in construction. 

4) While cost is mentioned as a barrier, the paper lacks a detailed economic analysis of AR implementation in construction. A more in depth economic analysis is needed, discussing not only the upfront costs of AR technology but also the long term cost benefit analysis. The paper could explore potential savings in construction timelines, labor costs, or safety related expenses to support the argument for wider AR adoption.

Author Response

We are pleased to present a detailed response to the reviewer's comments on our paper titled “A Systematic Literature Review of Augmented Reality’s Development in Construction”, which was submitted to “Electronics”.

1) The trends and challenges section lacks specific examples of real world AR applications in construction. How do these trends actually manifest on construction sites? The paper have to  include more concrete case studies or examples where these trends are actively transforming construction practices. Without such examples, the reader is left with vague assertions about the potential benefits of AR.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that providing specific, real-world examples is crucial for demonstrating how AR trends are transforming construction practices and avoiding vague assertions. In response, we have revised the "Trends and Challenges" section to describe several practical examples from the revised literature. Furthermore, we have included illustrative figures from those examples to provide visual context. These additions serve to illustrate how these trends manifest in real-world scenarios, helping readers to understand the practical impact and benefits of AR in the field, as suggested.

2) How generalizable are the findings to the global construction industry, given the concentration of studies in a few countries the ( U.S., China, and Australia)? The authors should discuss how the geographic concentration of studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. They should also explore whether AR applications in construction have specific regional barriers or opportunities that are not addressed by the current literature review.  Is the focus on AR-BIM integration overly optimistic given the current technological maturity?

Thank you very much for your comment, which we consider accurate and valuable. In the revised manuscript, we now make the geographical distribution of the studies included in the SLR clearer. In Section 2.4, we added a paragraph indicating that the United States, China and Australia account for around 57% of the publications included, while most of the remaining studies come from other advanced economies (the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy). In the same paragraph, we note that, with the combination of search terms used and the restriction to the Web of Science, no studies were identified from some markets with high levels of construction investment, such as India and Japan, even though these countries appear repeatedly in international rankings and sectoral surveys [16,17]. We also mention this point in the Future Work section.

Finally, regarding the potentially optimistic view of AR–BIM integration, we have revised the text to reflect more accurately the current level of technological maturity.

3) The study should include a more critical assessment of the challenges AR faces when integrated with Building Information Modeling, such as the issues of data interoperability, system integration, and the complexity of maintaining real time updates. The paper identifies ergonomic and cognitive challenges with AR devices but fails to provide actionable solutions. How can these limitations be addressed in future research. The authors should propose specific solutions or research directions aimed at addressing the ergonomic and cognitive challenges of AR use in construction. 

We thank the reviewer for the insightful feedback. In response to the comment regarding the need for a more critical assessment of the challenges associated with integrating AR and BIM—particularly data interoperability, system integration, and the complexity of maintaining real-time updates—the manuscript has been revised accordingly, with new content added to address these points.

Concerning the request for actionable solutions and clearer research directions regarding the ergonomic and cognitive challenges of AR use in construction, the manuscript has been revised accordingly. The updated version now includes recommendations and future research avenues aimed at addressing these limitations, extracted from the works surveyed.

4) While cost is mentioned as a barrier, the paper lacks a detailed economic analysis of AR implementation in construction. A more in depth economic analysis is needed, discussing not only the upfront costs of AR technology but also the long term cost benefit analysis. The paper could explore potential savings in construction timelines, labor costs, or safety related expenses to support the argument for wider AR adoption.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we expanded the “High costs” in Section 6, where we provide a more detailed discussion on upfront costs, long-term economic benefits, and the need for structured cost–benefit analyses in the literature. We also reinforced the concluding remarks to highlight the importance of future economic evaluations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a systematic literature review on the development of augmented reality in construction. The topic is of practical relevance, the literature analysis methodology is sound, and the experimental data are substantial. Minor revision is recommended. Specific comments are as follows:

1. Page 3, line 104: It is suggested to remove the analysis of publication countries, as nationality is not directly relevant to the technical analysis objectives of this paper.

2. The header formats of Table 2 and Table 3 should be unified. The numbers and labels on the bar chart for citations need to be enlarged for better readability. In Table 3, the subplot titles can be omitted since the table title and year labels already convey the necessary information.

3. Section 4: Each paragraph should include a brief topic title, similar to the format used in Section 6.

4. Section 5 is also suggested to be reformatted like Section 6.

5. Section 5 should include referenced images of several representative original works. Since AR is a visually impactful technology, including images would help readers quickly and intuitively understand the effects of the AR techniques discussed in the review. References for the images can be added in the captions.

Author Response

Page 3, line 104: It is suggested to remove the analysis of publication countries, as nationality is not directly relevant to the technical analysis objectives of this paper.

Thank you very much for your comment, which we consider accurate and valuable. In the revised manuscript, we now make the geographical distribution of the studies included in the SLR clearer. In Section 2.4, we added a paragraph indicating that the United States, China and Australia account for around 57% of the publications included, while most of the remaining studies come from other advanced economies (the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy). In the same paragraph, we note that, with the combination of search terms used and the restriction to the Web of Science, no studies were identified from some markets with high levels of construction investment, such as India and Japan, even though these countries appear repeatedly in international rankings and sectoral surveys [16,17]. We also mention this point in the Future Work section.

The header formats of Table 2 and Table 3 should be unified. The numbers and labels on the bar chart for citations need to be enlarged for better readability. In Table 3, the subplot titles can be omitted since the table title and year labels already convey the necessary information.

Thank you for your comment. The table captions have been further standardized, and the labels at the top of the charts have been removed. These charts are taken directly from the respective platforms, and we intend to preserve their original formatting in some way.

Section 4: Each paragraph should include a brief topic title, similar to the format used in Section 6.

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. To improve the readability and consistency of the manuscript without substantially rewriting the existing text, we have revised Section 4 so that each main paragraph now begins with a brief topic phrase in bold.

Section 5 is also suggested to be reformatted like Section 6.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, we have revised Section 5 to include brief topic titles for each paragraph, matching the format used in Section 6. We agree that this change improves the section's readability and structure.

Section 5 should include referenced images of several representative original works. Since AR is a visually impactful technology, including images would help readers quickly and intuitively understand the effects of the AR techniques discussed in the review. References for the images can be added in the captions.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that as AR is a highly visual technology, the inclusion of figures significantly enhances the reader's understanding. In response, we have revised Section 5 to include descriptions of several concrete examples from the revised literature. We have also added new figures from these representative studies to provide visual context and help readers intuitively understand the AR techniques discussed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors, I would appreciate it if you could underline the modifications to the original manuscript for review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your message. We have now revised the manuscript accordingly, and all modifications to the original text have been clearly highlighted to facilitate your review.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The papaer looks fine now.