Delays in the Road Construction Projects from Risk Management Perspective
and Ebrahim Safa 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents the development of weights of factors influencing delays in road construction projects using the classic AHP method. The article is a case study, it is not an article with a significant scientific contribution, as it does not propose any new concept, method or even comparative analysis.
Literature analysis is carried out without due diligence with only 15 references to the literature. No references to the original authors of the AHP method (Saaty).
Several experts participated in the study but the results in the form of matrices were presented as if they were related to the responses of one expert. So what method of group decision making was used?
Some of the results presented in Figure 3 are puzzling. For example, the weight for "management problems" in table 3 is 0.146, in the text (line 199) 0.164, and from the calculations in table 2 - 0.1284.
The proposed solutions and conclusions drawn from the research are very general and require in-depth analysis.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Many thanks for your kind attention to our manuscript and regarding it as a publishable article. I attempted to revise the manuscript based on the comments offered by reviewer in which they are corrected and clarified in a separate letter. The modifications you suggested were made and the English was slightly revised according to the style you introduced. In addition, the manuscript was carefully checked to fix any possible typographical errors. Most of modifications noted by the reviewer were also those quoted by you. Also, the references are formatted according to the journal instruction. Indeed, we will be so gratified if you let us know about any further comments on this behalf.
Best Regards,
Reza Mohajeri Borje Ghaleh
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript addresses the management and implementation of policies related to road management in cities, it is suitable for publication after further corrections:
a) The introduction and subsequent literature review are very restricted and poor. Note that there are only 15 references, consider some works, such as: 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00596; 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102794; 10.1007/978-3-030-65493-1_59; 10.1007/s42947-020-0129-6; 10.3390/su13137367.
b) The abstract must be improved;
c) There was no significant emphasis related to the research objective at the end of the introduction;
d) Remove table sequences, introduce texts and discussions between these tables;
e) The conclusion must present more quantitative data.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Many thanks for your kind attention to our manuscript and regarding it as a publishable article. I attempted to revise the manuscript based on the comments offered by reviewer in which they are corrected and clarified in a separate letter. The modifications you suggested were made and the English was slightly revised according to the style you introduced. In addition, the manuscript was carefully checked to fix any possible typographical errors. Most of modifications noted by the reviewer were also those quoted by you. Also, the references are formatted according to the journal instruction. Indeed, we will be so gratified if you let us know about any further comments on this behalf.
Best Regards,
Reza Mohajeri Borje Ghaleh
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the corrections made.
Reviewer 2 Report
Ok
