Simulation Analysis of Implementation Effects of Construction Waste Reduction Policies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for such an interesting manuscript and decent work presented. My minor comments are listed below for the improvement of the manuscript:
1- The abstract is vague and is not well-written. The reader cannot follow some sentences in the paragraph. Please rewrite and restructure it.
2- Please state the three different aspects in the abstract briefly.
3- In Line 30, use "studies" instead of "literatures".
4- The English of the paper is weak in some areas. For example, lines 56-61 are too long and not well-structured.
5- In line 84, the world is now shifting to the 5R theory (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover). Why are you stating the 3R theory?
6- The discussion section lacks references. You should support your thoughts and claims by some references.
7- The conclusion section is very brief. You should summarize the paper and its aim. Then, proceed to the results.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is advisable to make conclusions on the results rather than statement what was done.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article The Impact of Environment Policy Changes on Construction Waste Reduction: An Evolutionary Game Modeling Approach presents is poorly written and does not adhere to the standard format of writing a research paper. The article is full of grammatical and technical errors. Hence, I must reject the paper in its current form.
1. The title of the paper does not completely justify the content.
2. The materials and methodology part seems more like a summary of literature. Also, the gaps in the literature are not well addressed.
3. The authors get to the result and discussion part without clearly explaining the methodology adopted in the study and the reasons behind it.
4. The results are not conclusive, and the paper does not provide anything new to the existing literature.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Although the topic is interesting, it lacks state of the art review. The discussion and conclusions are general and have no significant contribution to the field.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments of the reviewer have been addressed and the paper in its current form is acceptable for publication. However, some minor grammatical corrections might be necessary. The authors are advised to use any grammar correcting software if necessary.
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have revised the manuscript considerably.
