Challenges in Integrating Australian Sawmilling with Prefabrication Manufacturing Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities in integrating Australia’s sawmilling sector with prefabrication manufacturing. The study offers strategic recommendations to enhance coordination, digital transformation, and supply chain resilience in timber construction

Some minor comments for the authors：

1. Figures 1, 2, and 4: These figures are not clear, and the embedded text appears blurry. Please provide higher-resolution versions, especially for schematic diagrams.
2. Line 153 – Methodology (“Academic Literature”): The authors should clarify the literature review process by specifying search keywords, time frame (years covered), databases used, and the approximate number of publications reviewed.
3. Line 169 – “Case Study Selection and Analysis”: The selection criteria for the case studies should be stated. For example, were cases chosen based on size or integration level?
4. Section 4.2 (Case Study): Some parameters such as return on investment, annual CLT production, changes in defect rates are suggested to added in the paper.
5. Section 4.2 (Case Study): It is recommended to supplement the case studies with some pictures such as process flow diagrams or photos of the production facilities. This would improve clarity and help readers better understand the content.
6. Section 4.3 – SWOT Analysis: This section currently only introduces the function of the SWOT framework. The discussion should be expanded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The work presents some particularities of the region studied, but also highlights many of the challenges faced globally by this sector.
Although it was not the main focus of the work, it is recommended that future work use the life cycle framework and explore the impacts of all processes, identifying the impacts of the process and the resulting products. This is specifically Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which seeks to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product or service throughout its entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to disposal, in what we call the environmental footprint of the process and product.
SWOT can be well applied to this approach, and an action plan should be developed based on it, which was not clearly defined in the initial proposal.
I consider the work, as it stands, suitable for the next editorial phases.

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Changes the Authors Have Taken into Account

• Expanded literature review - The revised article now includes a much more comprehensive and detailed overview of the Australian timber supply chain, including current statistics (2021–2025), projected demand gaps and the ratio of domestic to imported timber. Global comparisons (Austria, Germany) and current policy developments are also included.
• Clearer structure and organisation - The paper now has a clearly defined structure: introduction, background, methodology, results (with seven identified challenge topics), discussion, conclusion and key recommendations. The figures and tables are better integrated.
• Methodology improvement - The methodology section has been expanded to describe the data collection in three stages (academic literature, industry/government reports, standards review) and to include two case studies (Timberlink, Binderholz) for practical benchmarking.
• Inclusion of standards and technical details - The authors have added detailed references to Australian standards for grading, moisture measurement, dimensional tolerances and storage. These include AS/NZS numbers, grading categories and standards for appearance and durability.
• SWOT analysis and strategic roadmap - A new structured SWOT analysis is presented, followed by a prioritised roadmap for implementation. This addresses technical, operational and policy issues and provides clear recommendations.
• Expanded recommendations - Recommendations are now divided into specific focus areas (e.g. collaborative business models, unified grading, equipment modernization, moisture management, digital integration, logistics, circular economy, workforce development, policy harmonization). There are action points for each area.

2. Necessary Proposed Changes Not Yet Taken into Account

• Quantitative gap analysis - While the discussion points out that Australia-specific data on costs and impacts is limited (e.g. delays, rework, reject rates), the paper still does not include quantitative data on economic losses or savings from integration strategies. At least a case study could be added...?
• Visual improvements (if content is related to point 1 - Quantitative gap) - The figures are mostly schematic or conceptual; more comparative diagrams, flowcharts or statistics (e.g. wood utilization rates vs. defect rates before/after technology introduction) could better illustrate the extent of problems and benefits
• Clearer link between challenges and recommendations - Whilst the SWOT and recommendations sections are good, an explicit cross-tabulation linking each identified challenge to proposed actions would improve clarity for policy and industry readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx