A Systematic Review of Automated Construction Inspection and Progress Monitoring (ACIPM): Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No

Author Response

Thank You for your time and consideration, reviewing this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Systematic Review of Automated Construction Inspection and Progress Monitoring (ACIPM): Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions

Generally, there are a lot of research which look into different ACIPM, however, because this paper provides a review of these research, thus could add value to the body knowledge. there are, however, several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered further.

The introduction section is quite brief, which failed to provide compelling arguments for need of this paper demonstrating the gap in knowledge. there has to be some relevant literature which could support the reasons for conducting this research.

The methodology is quite general in nature. It does not set the scope of the literature and does not provide all the relevant information, for example the data bases used, the timeframe of the research, inclusion and exclusion criteria. I would suggest to review this paper “Key factors influencing the implementation of three-dimensional printing in construction” and adjust the research approach.

I am not sure why conference papers have been included (figure 1). Many researchers argue that in most cases the conference papers report the research which is in progress and the finding are not as mature as the journal paper. this argument is well discussed in “Making future floating cities sustainable: a way forward”.

It seems that the literature review is faulty because it does not cover all the relevant papers. I am quoting few of them here “Automated code compliance checking through building information modelling”; “Automated progress measurement using computer vision technology in UK construction” and “Challenges of BIM implementation in GCC construction industry”.

The results are quite general in nature with out any rigidity.

The conclusion should focus on the contribution, and do not overstate the finding. Clearly state the limitations of the research. there are a lot of general discussion which make the paper disengaging.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough proofread is recommended. 

Author Response

REVIEW 2:

Feedback 1: Generally, there are a lot of research which look into different ACIPM, however, because this paper provides a review of these research, thus could add value to the body knowledge. there are, however, several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered further.

The introduction section is quite brief, which failed to provide compelling arguments for need of this paper demonstrating the gap in knowledge. there has to be some relevant literature which could support the reasons for conducting this research.

Thank You for your time providing the author with a comprehensive review. The introduction is expanded as follows (Lines 31-57):

“Recent advancements in technology have significantly impacted the construction industry, particularly in the areas of Inspection and Progress Monitoring. The integration of Automated Construction Inspection and Progress Monitoring (ACIPM) systems has emerged as a pivotal factor in enhancing efficiency, accuracy, and safety in construction projects. With the deployment of various tools such as Laser Scanning (LS), Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS), and Building Information Modeling (BIM), the industry is witnessing a paradigm shift from traditional manual inspection methods to more sophisticated, automated solutions. These technologies offer the potential to not only streamline the inspection process but also provide real-time data, facilitating active decision-making.

However, the adoption of ACIPM in the construction industry is not without its challenges. Issues related to data integration, interoperability, and the need for specialized skills to operate and manage these technologies pose significant barriers to widespread adoption [7]. Additionally, the construction industry must navigate the legal and regulatory implications of adopting such technologies, ensuring compliance with standards and addressing concerns related to privacy and data security. Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of ACIPM in transforming the construction industry are immense. By fostering collaboration between academia and industry, and investing in research and development, the construction industry can overcome these challenges and fully harness the capabilities of ACIPM technologies.”

The significance of work was also mentioned in the following paragraph (Lines 72-77):

“Considering the novelty of ACIPM research in academia, there is no systematic approaches to comprehensively review the existing literature, with the purpose of identifying the gaps and recommending a direction for future research in this area. By creating a comprehensive review on different publication categories, including journal and conference papers, reports, and theses, this research paves the way to draw progress on this area and enable further advancements.”

 

Feedback 2: The methodology is quite general in nature. It does not set the scope of the literature and does not provide all the relevant information, for example the data bases used, the timeframe of the research, inclusion and exclusion criteria. I would suggest to review this paper “Key factors influencing the implementation of three-dimensional printing in construction” and adjust the research approach.

Thank you for your comment. It appears there may have been a misinterpretation regarding the methodology section. The concerns raised in your comment have already been discussed and addressed within the methodology portion of the document (Lines 85-90):

“The scope of this research covers any related research associated with ACIPM, ap-plied in both transportation construction and building construction domains. It also covers research on progress monitoring, considering it within the scope of building construction. This research excludes any research that does not involve at least one automated tool or technique in at least one of three steps of data collection, data processing, and data analysis.”

 And (Lines 104-109)

“The next step after defining the RQs, is to identify related keywords. All possible combinations related to ACIPM are created. Some of these keywords include Construction Inspection”, “Automated Bridge Inspection”, “Automated Highway Inspection”, “Automated Progress Monitoring”, “Automated Crack Detection” and “Automated Building Inspection”. After defining these keywords, a keyword search is performed in internet search engines. Google Scholar was mainly used for this purpose.”

 

Feedback 3: I am not sure why conference papers have been included (figure 1). Many researchers argue that in most cases the conference papers report the research which is in progress and the finding are not as mature as the journal paper. this argument is well discussed in “Making future floating cities sustainable: a way forward”.

Thank you for recommending the reference paper ““Making future floating cities sustainable: a way forward”. While the author acknowledges the perspective that conference papers published in proceedings may often report research in progress, it's important to note that many conferences in our field implement rigorous peer review processes, ensuring that the findings they present are both credible and valuable. The inclusion of Proceedings in this review is deliberate, aimed at capturing the full spectrum of current research and insights into ACIPM. This approach aligns with the evolving recognition within our academic community of the significance of Proceedings contributions as vital sources of peer-reviewed information."

 

Feedback 4: It seems that the literature review is faulty because it does not cover all the relevant papers. I am quoting few of them here “Automated code compliance checking through building information modelling”; “Automated progress measurement using computer vision technology in UK construction” and “Challenges of BIM implementation in GCC construction industry”.

Thank you for pointing out these publications. It's important to note that access to certain papers can be restricted, not freely available, or not included in Inter Library Loan (ILL) services provided by U.S. academic institutions. Due to the lack of funding for this research, it was necessary to limit the scope to documents accessible through our institution's library services. This limitation is acknowledged in the study as (Lines 114-117):

“A total of 196 articles were identified at this point to be collected. Inter Library Loan (ILL) service was used to access these articles. After collecting the articles available through ILL, magazines, manuals, and books were excluded, and a total of 138 resources were collected and stored, after the final filtration.”

 

Feedback 5: The results are quite general in nature without any rigidity.

Thank you for your feedback on the results section of this paper. If there are particular aspects or results you believe require further detail or rigidity, the author would greatly appreciate specific examples or areas of concern. This will enable them to address your feedback constructively and enhance the precision of our findings.

 

Feedback 6: The conclusion should focus on the contribution, and do not overstate the finding. Clearly state the limitations of the research. there are a lot of general discussion which make the paper disengaging.

To address this comment, the conclusion section is expanded by adding the following (Lines 515-532):

“It must be noted that, while this research is pioneering in its systematic review of ACIPM across transportation and building construction domains, it operates under certain limitations. Primarily, the scope of literature included is limited to academic publications including journal and conference publications, and other publications including reports and theses that are accessible through academic institutional channels, excluding potentially relevant magazines, books, and manuals, and references not available via these means. Additionally, while the review comprehensively analyzes existing methodologies, tools, and applications, it acknowledges the rapid evolution of technologies and methodologies in ACIPM, which may outpace this review's findings. Such limitations underscore the importance of ongoing research to continuously update and expand the understanding of ACIPM's applications, challenges, and future directions.

Last, but not least, while this paper contributes to the state-of-knowledge by systematically investigating the existing literature, future work will focus on reviewing the state-of-practice and implementations of ACIPM by Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and government agencies. It will concentrate on studying real-world projects where ACIPM has been implemented, aiming to identify and analyze the tangible impacts and outcomes of these technologies in improving project efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing safety standards across various construction projects.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting review. However, it is difficult to understand the main novelty of the paper. I would suggest to add some comparative study to underline the main contribution of the paper. Best, Faham 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

REVIEW 3:

Feedback 1: This is an interesting review. However, it is difficult to understand the main novelty of the paper. I would suggest to add some comparative study to underline the main contribution of the paper. Best, Faham

Thank You for your time and consideration. The author has modified the first paragraph under Conclusion section, to emphasize the novelty of this paper as (Lines 485-490):

“This paper presented the first comprehensive literature review on ACIPM, distinguishing itself by exploring applications, challenges, and future directions of ACIPM, not previously addressed in the existing reviews. Through a comprehensive analysis of existing research, it filled a significant gap in the academic discourse, offering new insights and frameworks that promise to advance the field of Construction Inspection and Progress Monitoring.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I had provided detailed comments to authors in the first round of review however, none of these are addressed – in fact some changes are made which make the issues identified more worse. Thus, the paper cannot be recommended for publication. The key issues raised in the previous review were related to the following areas.

1.      Nonidentification of gap in knowledge.

2.      No compelling arguments to support the research

3.      Weak and faulty methodology without setting the parameters and incorporating the research philosophy

4.      Weak arguments on using conference papers in systematic review

5.      Faulty method for literature review

6.      Vague results without any rigidity

7.      No clear contribution to knowledge

8.   Making non reasonable arguments about access to literature.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough proofread is required.